Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse in India is quite a common practice. Rampant corruption and incompetence are causing multiple increases in such offences in our society. People in India quite commonly practice tax evasion and PAN misuse. Rampant corruption and public personnel incompetence rapidly increase these offences in our society. Furthermore, the government adopts a lackadaisical approach to these crimes, which worsens the situation. Many individuals and businesses exploit these loopholes. Consequently, they undermine the financial system and damage the country’s economic stability.

The absence of strict enforcement allows offenders to operate with impunity. Because of this, the government faces significant revenue losses. This drain on resources ultimately hampers public services and development initiatives, as illicit activities swallow essential public funds. Therefore, authorities must implement stringent measures and promote awareness to curb tax evasion and PAN misuse effectively.

💡 Addressing the “Pacification” Argument (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

WhThe department is legally correct when it states it cannot disclose confidential investigation details under Section 138. However, your experience illustrates the critical difference between legal compliance and public accountability: (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

• Legal Compliance: The department complies with the letter of the law by treating your complaint as a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP). It then asserts confidentiality to protect the integrity of investigations and the privacy of the assessed party.
• Lack of Accountability: Regrettably, the department fails to provide a clear, result-oriented resolution to the victim of fraud. They closed the appeal without even providing a general update. For instance, they did not state that the investigation is underway or that they forwarded the matter to the local police. Meanwhile, an officer demanded your property details. This contradiction clearly suggests a failure of service and a lack of coordination.

Ultimately, this gap is precisely what leads complainants to feel that officials are pacifying them rather than serving them.

---

⚖️ How to Move Beyond Pacification (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

To counter this pacification strategy, you must shift your focus. Instead of demanding confidential investigation details, you should demand accountability for systemic failure and misconduct.

1. Focus on Misconduct (The ₹500/day Fine): First, you can take action regarding the alleged threat of a ₹500 daily fine and the demand for property details by Officer Sonal Singh. This behavior directly concerns harassment and official misconduct, which Section 138 does not protect.
   • Action: File a specific, new complaint with the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Income Tax Department and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Ensure you name the officer and attach the warning letter to force them to address the conduct rather than the TEP.
2. Focus on the Criminal FIR: Additionally, the existence of FIR No. 291/2023 serves as your strongest leverage. The police investigation provides a parallel criminal track that supersedes the administrative silence of the Income Tax Department.
   • Action: Write to the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Mirzapur. Explain how the Prayagraj and Bangalore offices are obstructing the criminal investigation by denying bank details. You can request the police to invoke necessary legal provisions to compel the department to surrender this crucial evidence.

By focusing on misconduct and the obstruction of the criminal case, you bypass the legal shield of confidentiality that officials use to close your appeals.f the criminal case, you bypass the legal shield of “confidentiality” that they have used to close your appeals and pacify your efforts.

---

1. The Official Process for Tax Evasion Petitions (TEPs)

The Income Tax Department (ITD) maintains a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for managing TEPs, which includes a time-bound investigation framework. However, your experience of zero results after submitting three TEPs suggests a breakdown in this process.

• Categorization: The ITD categorizes TEPs based on the credibility of the information and the potential tax evasion amount. For example, they assign Category A to high-value evasion above ₹5 crore.
• Actionable TEPs (Categories A & B): The department assigns these categories to the Investigation Directorate for detailed, time-bound investigations.
• Discreet Enquiry: Investigators first use internal departmental data like PAN, CIB, and AIS to verify allegations. Furthermore, Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act empowers them to gather information from external sources like banks.
• Your Case’s Discrepancy: In your case, the Prayagraj and Bangalore offices have denied bank details to the police. This denial contradicts the SOP’s directive to verify allegations through external sources, especially during an active PAN misuse investigation.

---

2. The Grievance Redressal Failure (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

The DGIT Systems closed your grievance by stating it was a matter of tax evasion rather than return processing. They then directed you to file a TEP. This response highlights a common bureaucratic pitfall where systems incorrectly classify identity fraud:

You file a grievance about fraud $rightarrow$ The ITD classifies it as a TEP $rightarrow$ You file a TEP $rightarrow$ The ITD takes no action.

In reality, the e-Nivaran and CPGRAMS portals exist to ensure:

• Prompt Redressal: The official time limit for a CPGRAMS grievance is 21 days.
• Monitoring Accountability: The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) supervises these systems. Senior officers closely monitor serious grievance cases and all PMO references.

Therefore, the department’s failure to respond to the Prime Minister’s portal directly challenges the CBDT’s Service Quality Manual. This manual explicitly emphasizes higher standards of accountability and disciplinary action against erring personnel.

3. Escalation Pathways for Your Specific Situation

Given the failure of the initial grievance and TEP process, you need alternative official channels. These paths handle misconduct and systemic failure directly. (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

Type of Escalation	Target Authority/Mechanism	Relevance to Your Case
Grievance against Officer Conduct	Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT)	Report the harassment and the unreasonable demands by Officer Sonal Singh regarding your property details.
Corruption / Misconduct (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)	Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)	Address the rampant corruption in the public offices and official misconduct that caused the inaction.
Systemic Failure (Appeal)	Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) via Appeal No. CBODT/E/A/25/0001007	Detail the procedural lapses, specifically the failure to use Section 133(6) to obtain bank details despite clear evidence of fraud.
Criminal Matter	Police / Investigating Officer (IO)

Inference and Illustration

The reality that cyber criminals transacted over ₹34 crore with impunity while the victim faces administrative penalties supports your claim that the ITD is shielding fraudulent elements. Consequently, the next logical step involves using dedicated external agencies to enforce internal accountability. (Tax Evasion & PAN Misuse)

Would you like me to find the contact details or the specific online portal for filing a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) regarding the officer’s misconduct?n (CVC) regarding the alleged misconduct of the Income Tax officer?

Tax Evasion Petition i.e. TEP along with its enclosures is being sent to the jurisdictional Director General of Income Tax (Inv)