🕵️ Analysis of Grievance PMOPG/E/2024/0184722: The Nexus of Police Inquiry, Income Tax, and Depository Records

This analysis addresses the core question of whether the appropriate reply has been given by the concerned Income Tax (I-T) officer, regarding the E-filing unit’s actions, particularly in response to the police inquiry detailed in the grievance. The inquiry raises significant concerns about the adequacy and relevance of the response provided by the I-T officer, which appears to diverge from the expectations set forth by the police request. The available documentation reveals a crucial misdirection of the police request, leading to a response from a Depository (NSDL) and not the intended Income Tax E-filing Unit. This miscommunication not only raises questions about the protocols followed in handling such inquiries but also casts a shadow on the efficiency of inter-departmental coordination, which is essential for addressing law enforcement requests comprehensively and transparently. As such, it is imperative to examine the underlying factors that contributed to this oversight, in order to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

---

🛑 The Core Issue: Misdirected Police Request

The central point of confusion lies in the parties involved and the request’s intended recipient versus its actual recipient. This often occurs when there are multiple stakeholders, each with their own expectations and interpretations of the communication. As a result, the message may be misaligned with the person for whom it was originally intended, leading to misunderstandings or delays in action. Clarity in identifying the correct recipient is crucial, as it directly impacts the effectiveness of the request and the subsequent responses from those involved. Furthermore, a thorough understanding of the relationships between the parties can help to mitigate confusion and ensure that all necessary information reaches the right individuals in a timely manner.

The Police Request

• Sender: RAMESH YADAV (so-katra.mi@up.gov.in), PS Kotwali Katra Dist- Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh Police).
• Date: September 05, 2024.
• Subject/Intent: Request to share details of a fraudulent bank account regarding PAN Card No. GSWPS0850Q.
• Legal Basis Cited: Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Sections 69 and 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
• Requesting:
  1. Linked Bank Account holder details (KYC and opening form).
  2. Contact Number of related Branch Managers.
  3. Other relevant details (usage logs/beneficiary information).

The Grievance Context

• Complainant: Yogi M. P. Singh.
• Grievance Filed: December 25, 2024 (Status: Under process).
• Concerns To: Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax) >> Corruption/Malpractices related (VCs, employees) >> Inaction by Income Tax Department.
• Officer/Office Cited: ITO E Filing Unit 2 Director of IT Neeta Sharma, DGIT(Systems) CPC, E-filing.

The Response Received

• Responder: NSDL (National Securities Depository Limited) – Surveillance Department.
• Date of Email: September 05, 2024 (Same day as police request).
• Content: “we have carried out a search in our records on the basis of PAN of GSWPS0850Q and observed that no Beneficial Owner (BO) account is found to be held against the said PAN with any Depository Participants (DPs) of NSDL.

---

🔍 Assessment: Has the Proper Reply Been Given by the Income Tax Officer?

The answer is No, based on the documents provided.

The grievance specifically concerns the “Inaction by Income Tax Department” and targets the “ITO E Filing Unit 2 Director of IT Neeta Sharma” and the “DGIT(Systems) CPC, E-filing.” The reply presented in the grievance document, however, is a direct response from the NSDL, a securities depository, and not an Income Tax authority. This misalignment raises significant concerns regarding accountability and the channels of communication between taxpayers and the government departments entrusted with tax regulation. It further highlights the need for clarity in the roles of various agencies involved in tax processing, as relying solely on responses from entities outside the jurisdiction of tax authorities can lead to confusion and unresolved issues for taxpayers seeking assistance. In this context, it is essential to ensure that grievances are addressed promptly and appropriately by the relevant authorities to maintain trust and efficiency in the tax system.

Key Reasons for the “No” Assessment:

1. Wrong Authority Responded: The police request was sent to a list of recipients including surveillancecell@nsdl.com, which is why NSDL responded. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) or the DGIT(Systems) CPC, E-filing unit has not provided any documented response in this record. The grievance alleges inaction by the I-T Department, and the response from NSDL does not negate this allegation.
2. Wrong Information Provided: The police requested details regarding Bank Accounts for alleged money laundering. The NSDL response is limited to confirming that no Beneficial Owner (BO) account (which relate to dematerialized securities holdings, like shares and bonds) is held with NSDL Depository Participants (DPs) against the PAN. This is a crucial distinction.
   • Bank Accounts: Held with Commercial Banks, regulated by the RBI. Information is typically held by Banks and the Income Tax Department (ITD).
   • BO/Demat Accounts: Held with Depositories (NSDL/CDSL) and Depository Participants (DPs). Information relates to securities investments.
   NSDL’s reply is accurate for their domain (demat accounts) but fails to address the core police request for linked bank account details.
3. Income Tax’s Obligation Under IT Act/CrPC: The police inquiry explicitly cites Sections 69 and 69B of the IT Act and Section 91 CrPC. When such a request is received by the Income Tax Department, especially one related to an investigation of money laundering/fraud, the I-T officer is obliged to respond by:
   • Acknowledging the request.
   • Searching their database (e.g., Annual Information Statement/TIS, ITRs, financial transactions data) to identify linked bank accounts and providing that data, or;
   • Stating that the requested information is not available with their unit.
   No such response from the I-T E-filing Unit is present in the document. The Income Tax E-filing Unit’s mandate includes processing returns and maintaining financial/transaction data linked to the PAN, making them a relevant party for bank account information.

---

📝 Conclusion and Next Steps for the Grievance

The current status of the grievance is “Under process” with Sh. Gopalan Gurusamy (DGIT Systems Bengaluru-Addl.charge). The grievance correctly identifies a failure in the system.

The “proper reply” required by the police, which the complainant expects, is a direct and relevant communication from the Income Tax Department’s E-filing Unit detailing the bank accounts linked to PAN GSWPS0850Q, or a formal statement explaining why that specific unit cannot furnish the requested bank details and/or which other I-T entity is the correct custodian of such information.

The NSDL response is a collateral piece of evidence confirming the PAN holder does not have securities holdings via NSDL, but it completely sidesteps the Income Tax Department’s alleged inaction and their duty to respond to the police’s query for bank account details. Therefore, the answer to the user’s question is that the concerned Income Tax Officer has not provided a proper reply as documented in the grievance status.