🚨 Contradictory Income Tax Notices: A Grievance Seeking Accountability

This blog post outlines a series of grievances filed by Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh, a concerned taxpayer who believes his rights have been compromised. It concerns the issuance of a specific Income Tax notice that has sparked significant concern and confusion. This notice seems to contradict prior official assurance from a senior tax authority. It raises questions about the consistency and reliability of communication from government entities.
The core issue revolves around two primary concerns. First, the contradiction itself undermines the trust citizens place in tax authorities. Second, there is a clear failure to adhere to administrative assurances. These assurances should give taxpayers confidence about their obligations.
Such discrepancies not only impact Mr. Singh personally; they have wider implications for the integrity of the tax system as a whole. This prompts a need for further examination and potential reform in how tax-related communications are handled.

---

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

A recent action by the Income Tax Department has triggered a formal grievance. The grievance’s Registration Number is CBODT/E/2025/0012674. It has been filed with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

• 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.

The grievance explicitly states that this notice is “contrary” to an earlier, formal remark made by a higher-ranking official. This effectively undermines an assurance given to the complainant.

---

II. The Pre-existing Administrative Assurance

The basis of the contradiction lies in an earlier grievance (Registration Number: MINHA/E/2023/0021424). It was filed with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The CBDT’s Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I & CI) wing handled it.

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

• Date of Receipt: 18/10/2023.
• Complainant: Yogi M. P. Singh.
• Grievance Description: The complainant raised an issue about the “Right to reason” being violated. He wants to know the reason for receiving streaming messages on his mobile and email. Instead of sending it to the actual holder of the mobile number (7024188072) and email (dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) mentioned in the Annual Information Report (AIR).

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

The matter was formally closed based on the remarks provided by a senior official:

• Officer Making Remark: Priyanka Dubey (Addl. Director of Income Tax TPS-II).
• Organization: Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax), Intelligence and Criminal Investigation.
• Remark Summary:
  1. Inquiries were being conducted about individuals who claimed HRA (House Rent Allowance) using the petitioner’s PAN (Sh. MP Yogi Singh/Mahesh Pratap Singh).
  2. The case was transferred to the ITO(I&CI) Lucknow for a coordinated inquiry.
  3. Crucially, the remark explicitly stated: “Till the completion of relevant inquiries no further notice is being issued to Sh. MP Yogi Singh (Petitioner).”
  4. Based on this assurance, the CPGRAM matter was treated as Settled and Closed.

---

III. The Violation of Assurance

The current dispute centers around the Notice under Section 133(6). It was issued by ITO Sonal Singh on 11/03/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23). This notice, issued for the same petitioner (Sh. MP Yogi Singh), appears to be a “further notice” directly violating the formal, written assurance given by the Addl. Director of Income Tax TPS-II on 15/12/2023, which promised “no further notice” until the HRA-related inquiries were finished.

The complainant is now utilizing the grievance mechanism to highlight this administrative contradiction and seek accountability.

---

IV. Current Action and Demand for Accountability

Two new grievances have been filed, both dated 11/03/2025, to tackle the contradictory notice:

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

• Concern: Corruption/Malpractices related to Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax).
• Current Status: Under Process.
• Officer Concerned: Sh. Gopalan Gurusamy (DGIT Systems Bengaluru).
• Demand: The grievance explicitly requests an inquiry into the matter and fixing accountability for the conflicting actions.

B. Home Affairs Grievance (MINHA/E/2025/0006503)

• Concern: Crime related (Records, prisons and cyber cell) under Home Affairs. This is due to the nature of the alleged HRA fraud. It is also related to the streaming messages mentioned in the earlier complaint.
• Current Status: Grievance received and forwarded to Home Affairs by S. M. I. Tanvir (Addl. DG Co-ord.II).
• Demand: The complainant specifically asks the Ministry of Home Affairs to “direct S.P Mirzapur to seek documents from Sonal Singh.” This indicates a need for police or criminal investigation oversight. Investigation is needed into the basis of the notice and its issuance despite the earlier assurance.

---

V. The Indispensable Right to Reason and Administrative Faith

The grievance (MINHA/E/2023/0021424) rightfully invoked the principle. The “Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system.

The current situation is a test of administrative faith. A senior official from the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation wing must honor their written assurance to a citizen. This is provided via a formal grievance resolution platform. This obligation is by the wider administrative system. The subsequent issuance of a Section 133(6) notice raises serious questions. This notice seeks information for the very period (AY 2022-23) the original investigation pertains to. It is issued before the promised completion of the inquiry. This raises concerns about inter-departmental coordination, adherence to official closure remarks, and the principle of administrative justice.

The requested inquiry into the matter is essential not just for the complainant. It ensures that the assurances provided by public authorities stay reliable. It also holds administrative systems accountable for contradictory or arbitrary actions.

---

Would you like me to find the contact information for S.P. Mirzapur or give a summary of the powers under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Income tax says that no further notice is being issued to Sh. MP Yogi Singh (Petitioner)

Appeal made against inconsistent report of income tax

Income Tax did not send notice to mobile and email holder of fraud businessman

Income Tax submitted bogus inconsistent and unsigned parrot report

Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) in Transaction of Rs.343877662 by misusing PAN