Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax are one of the glaring examples demonstrating how corrupt income tax officials often target citizens for exercising their rights. A case in point involves the Chief Information Commissioner of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, who found it necessary to issue a notice to these officials to address their misconduct. In an act of retaliation that highlights the depth of this corruption, the corrupt income tax officials subsequently sent a notice to the Appellant, aiming to intimidate and discourage them from pursuing their grievance. Such actions not only undermine trust in the tax system but also create an environment of fear, deterring individuals from seeking justice and transparency. This pattern of retaliatory behavior illustrates the urgent need for reforms to protect citizens from such abuses of power.

🚨 Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax? A Deep Dive into Tax Notices, RTI Appeals, and the Quest for Administrative Transparency in India

Indian citizens often navigate a maze of legal notices and procedural delays. Sometimes they even face what feels like targeted or retaliatory action from officials. For instance, a recent notice from the Income Tax Department illustrates this problem. The department issued it during an ongoing Second Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. As a result, the case shows how hard it can be for citizens to demand accountability from powerful government bodies. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

Specifically, this post examines a formal complaint sent to the Chief Information Commissioner of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. It covers three issues: first, the power of Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; second, the role of the RTI Act in challenging administrative action; and third, the importance of the “Right to Reason” in good governance.

---

The Core of the Conflict: Section 133(6) and the Citizen’s Right

The dispute centers on a notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section gives income tax authorities sweeping power. Specifically, it lets them require any person — including banks, firms, or other entities — to furnish information, documents, or accounts relevant to an inquiry. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

• The Power: Section 133(6) is a critical tool for the Income Tax Department’s Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I&CI) wing. Indeed, it lets the wing gather intelligence for tax evasion probes, verify Annual Information Statements (AIS), and conduct general scrutiny.
• The Allegation of Misuse: While necessary, the arbitrary or repeated use of this power is often a point of contention. In this case, the applicant claims the latest notice is an “arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal notice” and a “retaliatory action.” Income Tax Officer Sonal Singh issued that notice on March 11, 2025 (DIN: INSIGHT/VER/02/133(6)/2024-25/8122003052380001, for Assessment Year: 2022-23). (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

This claim of “retaliation” matters. It alleges a direct link between the department’s action and the applicant’s use of the RTI Act to hold officials accountable. Specifically, the applicant says the department issued the notice because the Information Commission summoned the CBDT Chairman. That summons, in turn, reportedly came from an RTI second appeal (Appeal Registration No. A-20240100130, File No. S01/A/0061/2024).

---

🏛️ The RTI Nexus: Using Transparency to Fight Scrutiny (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

The ongoing RTI appeal matters here. Specifically, the applicant, Yogi M P Singh, had already filed a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The next hearing is scheduled for 30/04/2025. That appeal targets the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the CBDT Chairman in New Delhi. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

When a citizen files an RTI appeal against a regulatory body, they exercise a fundamental right to know. This holds especially true against a body with investigative powers, like the I&CI wing. Meanwhile, the RTI Act, 2005 aims to keep the government and its bodies transparent. So when a citizen has to use the RTI mechanism at all, it suggests the public authority wasn’t transparent to begin with.

The email asks the Chief Information Commissioner to “protect your applicant from such arbitrary unconstitutional and illegal action to achieve ulterior design” and to “ask them to provide the detailed proceedings concerned with the matter.” In effect, it asks the Information Commission to step into a case of alleged administrative misconduct. That misconduct arose alongside, and possibly because of, the RTI process itself.

---

The Indispensable ‘Right to Reason’ in Administration (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

One of the most powerful arguments in the applicant’s case is the mention of the “Right to reason.” (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

Sound administrative law treats the right to a reasoned decision as essential to a fair system. Specifically, when an authority takes an action that harms a citizen, it must clearly state its reasons. This matters for three reasons:

1. Challenging the Decision: Citizens cannot legally challenge a notice unless they know its factual or legal basis.
2. Preventing Arbitrariness: A required reason checks arbitrary or capricious use of power by the issuing officer.
3. Ensuring Accountability: It compels the administration to apply its policies and laws consistently and rationally.

A Promise of Cessation and the Subsequent New Notice (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

The correspondence also highlights an earlier grievance filed via CPGRAM (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System), registration number MINHA/E/2023/0021424. That grievance concerned messages about an Annual Information Report (AIR). Specifically, officials sent those messages in the applicant’s name instead of the actual holder of the mobile number or email. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

Crucially, the resolution of this previous grievance, dated 15/12/2023, included a clear remark from Priyanka Durbey (Addl. Director of Income Tax TPS-II):

“Till the completion of relevant inquiries no further notice is being issued to Sh. MP Yogi Singh (Petitioner).”

This remark closed the CPGRAM case as “Settled” and served as a direct administrative commitment. However, a different ITO in the same I&CI wing then issued a new notice on 11/03/2025. That notice appears to contradict the earlier commitment. Indeed, the applicant points out that the new notice is “contrary to remark made by Priyanka Durbey (Addl. Director of Income Tax TPS-II).” (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

This contradiction is at the heart of the “arbitrary action” claim. As a result, it raises serious questions about inter-departmental coordination and adherence to prior administrative assurances. It also raises the question of whether the department is operating with the consistency the law requires.

---

⚖️ The Broader Implications for Administrative Justice (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

The case of Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P. Singh) is not just about one tax notice. It illuminates several structural points about administrative justice in India:

1. The Burden on the Citizen: The email reveals a heavy personal toll. Indeed, the applicant says they are “unemployed somehow arranges the two square meal for the family.” Unnecessary or repeated administrative action places a disproportionate financial and psychological burden on individuals. It often forces them to divert scarce resources toward legal counsel or responding to complex notices. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)
2. The Perception of Retaliation: Sometimes a state actor faces a challenge — for example, a Chairman summoned by the Information Commission. When an adverse action follows, the perception of retaliation threatens the democratic process. Ultimately, it can discourage other citizens from exercising fundamental rights like the right to information.
3. The Role of Superior Authorities: The applicant’s appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner is a cry for help. It reflects a recognition that they have “no ray of hope from other quarters.” This underscores why judicial and quasi-judicial bodies like the Information Commission matter. Ultimately, they act as a genuine check on the executive, especially when an individual feels cornered by multiple arms of the state.

Ultimately, the citizen’s simple but profound final plea—“O God help me from this retaliatory action of the income tax and ask them to provide the detailed proceedings concerned with the matter”—highlights the desperate need for procedural clarity and administrative compassion.

---

Conclusion: Upholding the Pillars of Governance

The Income Tax Department plays an essential role in nation-building, so it needs its investigative powers under Section 133(6). However, officials must always tether those powers to the principles of natural justice and the “Right to Reason.”

This case, now before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, tests administrative fairness. Its resolution must address the legality of the latest notice. Additionally, it must address the apparent contradiction with the CPGRAM assurance and the allegation of retaliatory intent tied to the ongoing RTI appeal. (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)

In a thriving democracy, citizens who seek information and transparency should never feel like they’re inviting retribution. Instead, officials must meet legal queries and requests for accountability with reasoned responses, not the threat of prolonged investigation. Only then can the system uphold good governance. Only then is every citizen, regardless of status, protected from the arbitrary exercise of state power.

Here are the official web links for the public authorities named in the article, in short:

• Income Tax Department (e-filing, PAN, TDS, refunds): https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/ and www.incometax.gov.in Income Tax India
• Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT): www.incometaxindia.gov.in for Acts, Rules, Circulars, Notifications, under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Income Tax India (Retaliatory Actions by Income Tax)
• Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance: dor.gov.in, the official portal covering Direct Tax, Indirect Tax, and related notifications DOR
• Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) — for the RTI second appeal: upic.gov.in Wikipedia
• RTI Online (for filing/tracking RTI applications with central government ministries/departments): rtionline.gov.in
• CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) — where the earlier grievance (MINHA/E/2023/0021424) was filed: pgportal.gov.in

---