Table of contents
- Introduction Income Tax Fraud Complaint
- 🚨 Income Tax Fraud Complaint: A Mirzapur Resident’s Battle Against Misuse of PAN
- What PAN Misuse Actually Means
- The Chronology of Grievances and Notices
- The Immediate Call for Action (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
- Why This Case Matters Beyond Mirzapur
- Related Posts like Income Tax Fraud Complaint
Introduction Income Tax Fraud Complaint
Income Tax Fraud Complaint is showing how cyber fraud is multiplying in India. This alarming trend reflects the growing sophistication of online scams that exploit vulnerabilities in the financial system and target unsuspecting individuals. As these fraudulent activities flourish, they reveal a troubling aspect of society, where the perpetrators often operate with impunity. The rampant corruption among public staff exacerbates the issue, as some employees ignore or even facilitate these illegal activities for personal gain. It raises serious questions about the integrity of the enforcement agencies responsible for combating such crimes. To effectively address this menace, there is an urgent need for comprehensive reforms, stricter penalties, and greater public awareness to protect citizens from becoming victims of these sophisticated cyber fraud schemes.
Key Takeaways
- Income Tax Fraud is on the rise in India, highlighting the increasing sophistication of cyber scams.
- Yogi M. P. Singh from Mirzapur faces unresolved issues stemming from the misuse of his PAN, leading to erroneous income tax notices.
- Despite filing grievances with various authorities, Singh’s case showcases the failures in accountability and coordination among tax and police departments.
- Mr. Singh’s complaints reveal ongoing administrative inertia and the urgent need for reforms to protect individuals from cyber fraud.
- The case exemplifies a broader challenge as identity theft through PAN misuse grows alongside India’s digital tax structure, necessitating prompt action.
🚨 Income Tax Fraud Complaint: A Mirzapur Resident’s Battle Against Misuse of PAN
Cyber fraud and income tax scrutiny rarely mix well. But for Yogi M. P. Singh of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, they’ve collided into a long-running battle. Indeed, he has filed grievances with several authorities. These include the Uttar Pradesh government, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Yet the matter remains unresolved.
At the heart of his complaint is a simple but troubling claim: someone allegedly misused his Permanent Account Number (PAN: GSWPS0850Q). As a result, records show an astonishing “Rent received” figure. That figure comes to ₹1,27,01,673 for Financial Year 2021–22 (Assessment Year 2022-23). Alongside it sits a Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) figure of ₹3.4 crore. Because of this, the Income Tax Department’s Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I&CI) wing has repeatedly issued notices to him. These notices cite Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
What PAN Misuse Actually Means
For context, a PAN is a unique ten-digit identifier issued to every taxpayer in India. Banks, landlords, and employers use it to report financial transactions to the tax department. Normally, this system works quietly in the background. However, when a fraudster gets hold of someone else’s PAN, they can attach fake income — like rent — to an innocent person’s tax profile. Consequently, the real taxpayer receives notices for income they never earned. This appears to be exactly what happened to Mr. Singh.
The Chronology of Grievances and Notices
Overall, Mr. Singh has pursued redress across several official grievance platforms. Together, these filings trace a persistent effort. His goal has been to clear his name and push for a full investigation into the discrepancies. (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
1. The Initial Police Report and First I&CI Notice (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
First, Mr. Singh flagged the issue through a formal police complaint. As a result, police registered a First Information Report (FIR). It named an unknown person for PAN misuse at Police Station Kotwali Katra. The FIR (No. 291/2023) cites Section 420 IPC along with Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, and it was filed on November 11, 2023. However, the investigation has dragged on. Grievance Status GOVUP/E/2025/0024084 notes it has continued for “one year 5 months and findings are nothing.”
Meanwhile, Income Tax Officer Mohammad Daud Ahmad issued the first Section 133(6) notice on June 8, 2023. In response, Mr. Singh says he replied comprehensively on October 6, 2023.
2. The Home Affairs Grievance and Assurance (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
In October 2023, Mr. Singh lodged Grievance MINHA/E/2023/0021424 with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Specifically, he questioned why authorities sent messages to his own mobile and email. After all, a different mobile number (7024188072) and email (dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) appeared in the Annual Information Report (AIR).
Then, on December 15, 2023, Priyanka Durbey, Addl. Director of Income Tax TPS-II, offered a key remark: (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
“In this matter inquiries are being conducted in respect of the persons who have claimed HRA by using the PAN of the petitioner of this Grievance… Till the completion of relevant inquiries no further notice is being issued to Sh. MP Yogi Singh (Petitioner). The CPGRAM matter may be treated as Settled.”
In other words, officials appeared to pause notices to Mr. Singh. Meanwhile, they investigated the actual culprits. These were the individuals who had claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) using his PAN.
3. The Contradictory Subsequent Notice (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
Despite that assurance, a new and contradictory notice arrived. Specifically, Grievance GOVUP/E/2025/0024084 mentions a “similar notice sent by Income tax officer Sonal Singh, DDIT/ADIT (I&CI), Lucknow yesterday.” That notice, dated March 11, 2025, carries the reference DIN: INSIGHT/VER/02/133(6)/2024-25/8122003052380001. Once again, it addressed Mahesh Pratap Singh, also known as Yogi M. P. Singh. And once again, it detailed the same AY 2022-23 transactions. Consequently, Mr. Singh argues the notice directly contradicts Priyanka Durbey’s earlier remark.
4. The PMO Grievance and Demand for Accountability
Next, on December 21, 2024, Mr. Singh filed a grievance with the PMO. The reference is PMOPG/E/2024/0182646, titled “Investigating Cyber Fraud of Rs.343877662 in Uttar Pradesh.” In it, he raises a pointed question about departmental accountability: (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
“Tax deposit at the source (TDS) is 3.4 crore rupees. From which account this money was deposited to government Treasury must be available to the Department of income tax and while is concerned police not asking Sonal Singh to provide those account details?
Indeed, this question matters. After all, the Income Tax Department should already hold the source details for such a large TDS deposit. So, identifying the bank account and the entity behind it offers the most direct path forward. It could uncover the fraud at its root.
The Immediate Call for Action (Income Tax Fraud Complaint)
Finally, Mr. Singh’s latest grievance went to Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh. He received it on March 12, 2025. In it, Mr. Singh makes a direct call for intervention:
“Please direct S.P Mirzapur to seek documents from Sonal Singh.”
This request matters for two reasons. First, it could break a stalemate. The Mirzapur Police investigation has stalled for over a year. As a result, this step would push officers to use the financial evidence the I&CI wing already holds. Second, it would bring Income Tax Officer Sonal Singh into direct contact with the investigating police. That contact could potentially resolve a contradiction. Specifically, it would reconcile Priyanka Durbey’s earlier assurance with Sonal Singh’s new notice.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Mirzapur
Ultimately, Mr. Singh’s case illustrates a broader problem. When police and tax authorities fail to coordinate, administrative inertia can prolong a victim’s suffering. Cases like this are not isolated. Identity theft through PAN misuse has grown alongside India’s digital tax infrastructure. Yet accountability mechanisms have not always kept pace. Meanwhile, the key evidence in this case — the source of the ₹3.4 crore TDS deposit and the identity of the original HRA claimants — sits with the tax department. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, should act quickly. A formal request for documentation from the Income Tax officer is the logical next step. In short, that action remains the clearest way to solve the case and end Mr. Singh’s ordeal.
Changes made: every sentence over ~20 words got split into two or three; I added a short explanatory section (“What PAN Misuse Actually Means”) and a closing context section (“Why This Case Matters Beyond Mirzapur”) to hit ~1000 words without inventing new case-specific facts — the added material is general background on how PAN fraud works. Transition-word density should still sit comfortably above 30%.’s ordeal.outlined in his grievance?
Here are official outbound links for the public authorities referenced in the article, useful for Yoast’s “outbound link” recommendation:
- Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), India – https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/prime-ministers-office/
- CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) – https://pgportal.gov.in/
- Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India – https://www.mha.gov.in/
- Income Tax Department, India – https://www.incometax.gov.in/
- Intelligence & Criminal Investigation (I&CI) Directorate — Income Tax – https://incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/i-cid.aspx
- Uttar Pradesh Police (main portal) – https://uppolice.gov.in/
- Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s Office / Secretariat – https://cmup.gov.in/
- Jansunwai (UP State Grievance Portal) – https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.