Judgment :- Heard both. The learned counsel for the petitioner would project the case of the petitioner to the effect that even though the petitioner took effective steps to reply in response to the notice, dated 25.03.2008 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (3), Range-I, Erode, nonetheless certain particulars which were required by the petitioner, were not furnished and hence he could not file his reply. Whereas the learned counsel for the Income Tax Authorities submits that already they have furnished the particulars, which the petitioner wanted and if the petitioner is in need of any more information, he could approach the Authority, who would willingly furnish. 2. In these circumstances, I would like to issue the following direction: "Within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, let the petitioner approach the respondent for furnishing the relevant particulars. One week thereafter, let the Authorities furnish the particulars required and still thereafter within a week, let the reply be given to the Authorities concerned, who shall consider it on merits." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in an extempore manner make a submission that without the knowledge of the petitioner herein, if any order is passed by the respondent, de hors that order, the authorities shall furnish the particulars and comply with the directions of this court. There could be no objection for ordering so. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.