📝 Citizen’s Ordeal: The Case of PAN Misuse and Alleged Inaction by the Income Tax Department

The core issue outlined in the grievances filed by Yogi M. P. Singh (Complainant) is the alleged large-scale fraudulent misuse of a Permanent Account Number (PAN) belonging to Mahesh Pratap Singh (PAN: GSWPS0850Q) for massive, unauthorized business transactions and tax evasion, coupled with a complaint of ‘Inaction by the Income Tax Department (ITD)’ in effectively resolving the matter.

---

1. The Allegation of Fraudulent PAN Misuse

The complainant alleges that an unknown, fraudulent party has co-opted the PAN belonging to Mahesh Pratap Singh (DOB: 22/06/1971) to conduct a massive scale of business activities, effectively making the innocent PAN holder the target of tax inquiries and liabilities.

• Misused Identity Details: The PAN (GSWPS0850Q) is linked to contact details (Mobile: 7024188072, Email: dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) and an address in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, which the complainant asserts belong to the fraudulent elements, not the actual PAN holder residing in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.
• Scale of Transactions: Significant financial activities, reportedly exceeding ₹34 Crore in total transactions for an individual who denies conducting such business, have been recorded against this PAN in the ITD’s system (Annual Information Statement/Taxpayer Information Summary).
  • Business Receipts: ₹4,65,76,920
  • GST Purchases: ₹12,20,99,234
  • GST Turnover: ₹16,32,92,127
  • Rent Received: ₹1,19,09,381

---

2. Official Grievances and Concerns

Two key grievances highlight the struggle to get the matter resolved, escalating the issue to the highest levels of government.

Grievance 1: PMOPG/E/2024/0184722 (Prime Minister’s Office)

• Date of Receipt: 25/12/2024
• Ministry/Department: Prime Minister’s Office
• ITD’s Initial Response (13/01/2025): The Director of IT, Neeta Sharma, provided a report attaching “bank accounts details retrieved from the system.”
• Complainant’s Counter-Point: The complainant immediately questioned this response, asking: “Whether such huge business transactions were carried out without bank accounts?” This implies that the provided details were either incomplete, fraudulent, or the transactions occurred without proper banking sector checks, further complicating the police investigation.

Grievance 2: CBODT/E/2025/0013108 (Central Board of Direct Taxes)

• Date of Receipt: 14/03/2025
• Grievance Description: Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax) >> Corruption/Malpractices related (VCs, employees) >> Inaction by Income Tax Department
• Current Status: Under process (as of 14/03/2025)
• Officer Concerned: Vivek Mishra (Pr. CCIT), CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUCKNOW
• Core Concern: This grievance specifically targets the perceived failure of the ITD to take decisive action against the fraudsters and to provide the police with the necessary, verified bank account information linked to the fraudulent transactions.

---

3. The Crux of the Issue: The Bank Account Disconnect

The central and most critical roadblock identified is the profound discrepancy regarding bank accounts:

• The Problem: Massive financial transactions (over ₹34 Crore) have been recorded against the PAN.
• The ITD’s Stance (Reported): Documents and responses from the ITD have, at times, indicated that bank details are not available in the department’s database for this PAN, or that no Beneficial Owner (BO) account is found with Depositories (NSDL).
• The Logical Flaw: The complainant argues that transactions of this magnitude cannot occur without a financial trail and bank accounts. The failure to trace these details and link them to the fraudsters is cited as the “Inaction by Income Tax Department” which is stalling the underlying criminal investigation into the identity theft and tax fraud.

The complainant’s demand is clear: The Income Tax Department must cooperate with the police investigation by providing verified information on how these huge transactions were conducted and from where the data was collected, to help identify and prosecute the fraudulent elements.

That is a complex and ongoing issue. Based on the public information available from the searches, the grievance has escalated and continues to be actively contested, with new developments even after the dates mentioned in your initial query.

---

📅 Latest Status Update on the PAN Misuse Grievances

The searches confirm that the initial grievances led to further appeals and the involvement of multiple high-level agencies.

1. Status of Initial Grievance (PMOPG/E/2024/0184722)

• Initial Action (13/01/2025): The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, provided a report stating that “bank accounts details were retrieved from the database and attached.
• Complainant’s Rating: The Complainant rated the ITD’s response as “Poor,” arguing it failed to address the core issue of fraud and the lack of proper, verifiable details for the large transactions.
• The Contradiction: The complainant highlighted the contradiction where the ITD system flags ₹34.38 Crore in transactions, but in some communications (including a Depository response), “no Beneficial Owner (BO) account is found” to be held against the PAN, or the ITD is not providing the details to the police.

2. Escalation and Subsequent Actions (CBODT/E/2025/0013108)

The grievance filed on 14/03/2025 against the Pr. CCIT Lucknow (Vivek Mishra) concerning “Inaction by Income Tax Department” appears to be part of a broader, continuous appeal process.

• Subsequent Notice (Dated 18/03/2025): An Income Tax Officer (Sonal Singh, ITO DDIT/ADIT (I&CI)) issued a notice (DIN: INSIGHT/CMP/02/2024-25/8123…) to the complainant’s address, demanding the filing of an Income Tax Return for FY 2022-23 and warning of a ₹500 per day penalty for non-compliance, despite the ongoing fraud complaint and the complainant asserting the information is incorrect. This notice reflects the ITD continuing to treat the PAN holder as responsible for the transactions.
• Appeal for CBI Enquiry (Dated 16/03/2025): The complainant filed another grievance (PMOPG/E/2025/0036445) requesting a CBI Enquiry into the cyber fraud, escalating the matter to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Home Affairs due to the failure of the police and ITD to resolve the issue.

3. The Latest Judicial Development (As of July 2025)

The most significant recent update suggests the case has moved beyond departmental grievances into an independent monitoring process:

• Total Fraud Allegation: The total alleged tax fraud has been cited as high as ₹350 Million (₹35 Crore).
• Judicial Monitoring: The investigation is reportedly being carried out under the direct monitoring of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of Uttar Pradesh.
• Core Focus of Judicial Oversight: The CIC is monitoring the investigation into the massive financial crime (involving nearly 200 companies) committed through the alleged PAN misuse, in light of the complainant’s allegations of procedural delays and non-compliance by local police personnel in Mirzapur.

---

Conclusion: The Core Unresolved Conflict

The documents confirm the core conflict remains:

• The ITD’s records (AIS/TIS) show huge financial transactions against the PAN (GSWPS0850Q).
• The Complainant denies these transactions, claiming identity theft/PAN misuse and asserting the contact details (mobile/email) used for the fraud are not theirs.
• The ITD and its subsidiaries are being criticized for issuing contradictory information—demanding compliance from the victim while allegedly failing to provide the full, verified bank account details linked to the ₹34+ Crore fraudulent transactions to the investigating police.

The case has now progressed to being monitored by the CIC, suggesting the complainant is seeking a higher-level, independent authority to force the Income Tax Department and the police to cooperate fully and transparently to expose the fraudsters.

---

Do you want me to search for the specific details of the Chief Information Commissioner’s directions in this case?