Addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation, particularly concerning the fraudulent transaction of 54 Crore rupees, remains a pressing issue that demands urgent attention. Despite numerous investigations and the evident financial discrepancies, the police have not arrested a single offender. This lack of action raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of law enforcement and their collaboration with financial regulatory bodies. Authorities have often claimed that the income tax department is not supporting their efforts, which further complicates the situation. It is crucial for the government to strengthen its resolve in tackling these issues, ensuring that those involved are held accountable. Transparency in financial dealings must be prioritized, and robust mechanisms need to be implemented to prevent such occurrences in the future, safeguarding public interests and fostering trust in the taxation system.

Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation: A Grievance Seeking Accountability

First and foremost, Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh, a concerned taxpayer, has filed a series of grievances addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation after receiving an Income Tax notice that appears to contradict an earlier official assurance from a senior tax authority. As a result, questions now surround the consistency and reliability of government communication. Indeed, this is not simply a paperwork dispute; rather, it strikes at the heart of how much faith citizens can place in official assurances.

Overall, two concerns sit at the core of this case. First, the contradiction undermines the trust citizens place in tax authorities. Second, and just as importantly, it shows a clear failure to honour administrative assurances — assurances that should, after all, give taxpayers confidence about their obligations.

Because of this, the discrepancy doesn’t just affect Mr. Singh personally; instead, it also raises broader concerns about the integrity of the tax system as a whole. Consequently, addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation has become essential to restoring public confidence. Therefore, it points to a need for closer examination and possible reform of how tax authorities handle communications.

---

I. The Contradictory Notice: A Section 133(6) Challenge

To begin with, a recent action by the Income Tax Department triggered a formal grievance, registered as CBODT/E/2025/0012674 with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Specifically, the notice and its surrounding details are as follows: (Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation)

• Officer Issuing Notice: Sonal Singh, Income Tax Officer
• Notice Details: Notice under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
• Recipient: Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P. Singh)
• PAN & Assessment Year: PAN GSWPS0850Q; Assessment Year 2022-23
• Date of Notice: 11/03/2025
• Office/Region: DGIT(Systems) CPC, E-filing

Notably, the grievance states plainly that this notice contradicts an earlier, formal remark from a higher-ranking official. In other words, it undermines the very assurance the department gave to the complainant.

---

II. The Pre-existing Administrative Assurance (Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation)

To understand the contradiction fully, it helps to trace it back to an earlier grievance (Registration Number: MINHA/E/2023/0021424), which Mr. Singh filed with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Subsequently, the CBDT’s Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I & CI) wing handled the matter.

A. Original Grievance Context (MINHA/E/2023/0021424)

• Date of Receipt: 18/10/2023
• Complainant: Yogi M. P. Singh
• Grievance Description: Specifically, the complainant raised a “Right to reason” violation, asking why he was receiving streaming messages on his mobile and email instead of the department sending them to the actual holder of the mobile number (7024188072) and email (dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) named in the Annual Information Report (AIR).

B. The Official Assurance (Dated 15/12/2023)

Eventually, a senior official’s remarks formally closed the matter:

• Officer Making Remark: Priyanka Dubey, Addl. Director of Income Tax, TPS-II
• Organization: Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax), Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation)

In particular, her remarks explained that officials were investigating individuals who had claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) using the petitioner’s PAN. She said they had transferred the case to the ITO(I&CI) Lucknow for a coordinated inquiry. Crucially, she stated: “Till the completion of relevant inquiries no further notice is being issued to Sh. MP Yogi Singh (Petitioner).” On the basis of this assurance, the department marked the CPGRAM matter Settled and Closed.

---

III. The Violation of Assurance (Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation)

Turning now to the current dispute, it centres on the Section 133(6) notice, which ITO Sonal Singh issued on 11/03/2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. Because this notice targets the same petitioner, it therefore appears to be a “further notice” that directly violates the written assurance the Addl. Director of Income Tax, TPS-II, gave on 15/12/2023. That assurance specified no further notice would follow until the HRA-related inquiries concluded.

As a direct consequence, the complainant is now using the grievance mechanism to highlight this contradiction, thereby underscoring why addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation matters not just for his own case but also for public trust in the system more broadly. Furthermore, this pattern raises a deeper question: if administrative assurances can be overturned without explanation, then what recourse do ordinary taxpayers actually have?

---

IV. Current Action and Demand for Accountability

In response, Mr. Singh has filed two new grievances, both dated 11/03/2025, as part of his continued effort addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation:

A. CBDT Grievance (CBODT/E/2025/0012674)

• Concern: Corruption/malpractice related to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax)
• Current Status: Under Process
• Officer Concerned: Sh. Gopalan Gurusamy, DGIT Systems Bengaluru
• Demand: Specifically, an inquiry into the matter, with accountability fixed for the conflicting actions

B. Home Affairs Grievance (MINHA/E/2025/0006503) (Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation)

• Concern: Crime-related matter (records, prisons, and cyber cell) under Home Affairs, given the alleged HRA fraud. Additionally, there is the earlier streaming-messages complaint.
• Current Status: Received and forwarded to Home Affairs by S. M. I. Tanvir, Addl. DG Co-ord. II
• Demand: In particular, Mr. Singh has asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to direct the S.P. Mirzapur to obtain documents from Sonal Singh — a request that, in turn, points to the need for police or criminal oversight of how officials issued the notice despite the earlier assurance.

Meanwhile, both grievances remain under review. Therefore, the outcome of each will likely set an important precedent for how similar contradictions get resolved in the future.

---

V. Why Addressing Corruption and Irregularities in Taxation Requires Administrative Faith

To start with, the original grievance (MINHA/E/2023/0021424) rightly invoked the “Right to reason” — a principle that, above all, forms an essential part of a sound administrative system.

Consequently, this case now tests that principle directly. Specifically, a senior official from the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation wing gave a written assurance to a citizen through a formal grievance-resolution platform. Therefore, the wider administrative system must honour that commitment. Since the department issued the Section 133(6) notice before completing the promised inquiry — and moreover for the very period (AY 2022-23) that investigation covers — the case raises serious questions about inter-departmental coordination, adherence to official closure remarks, and administrative fairness.

Additionally, this situation illustrates a broader pattern that extends well beyond one individual’s case. After all, when one wing of an authority makes a formal, written commitment, other wings of the same authority ought to honour it, too. Otherwise, taxpayers can never be certain that today’s official assurance will still hold tomorrow. As a result, confidence in the entire grievance-redressal system erodes.

Ultimately, then, addressing corruption and irregularities in taxation benefits more than one complainant. Instead, it ensures that assurances from public authorities remain reliable, and it also holds administrative systems accountable when their actions contradict their own commitments. In short, unless such contradictions are examined and resolved, the credibility of the entire tax administration system remains at stake.

Web link details of the concerned public authorities

Authority	Role in the Case	Officer Concerned
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)	Handling the tax notice grievance (CBODT/E/2025/0012674)	Sh. Gopalan Gurusamy, DGIT Systems Bengaluru
CBDT – Intelligence & Criminal Investigation (I&CI) wing	Issued the original assurance	Priyanka Dubey, Addl. Director of Income Tax, TPS-II
ITO (I&CI) Lucknow	Handling the coordinated HRA-misuse inquiry	—
Income Tax Officer	Issued the disputed Section 133(6) notice	Sonal Singh
DGIT(Systems) CPC, E-filing	Office of notice issuance	—
Ministry of Home Affairs	Handling the second grievance (MINHA/E/2025/0006503) via CPGRAM	S. M. I. Tanvir, Addl. DG Co-ord. II
S.P. Mirzapur	Requested to obtain documents from Sonal Singh	—