Explore the process of addressing your Income Tax Grievance effectively, and understand the necessary steps to take. First, the journey begins with meticulously reviewing your tax documents and identifying specific discrepancies or concerns regarding your taxable income, deductions, or credits. Once you have gathered all relevant information, it’s essential to document your grievances clearly, providing supporting evidence wherever possible. Next, reach out to the appropriate tax authority, whether it’s the IRS or your local tax offices, and prepare to submit a formal grievance or appeal. Additionally, be sure to follow all provided guidelines and timelines to ensure your submission is valid. Finally, after submission, remain proactive in monitoring the status of your case, and stay ready to respond promptly to any requests for additional information, since this can significantly impact the resolution process.

🚨 The Digital Shadow of Identity Theft: An Individual’s Battle Against Alleged PAN Misuse and Systemic Apathy

The use of one’s Permanent Account Number (PAN) is central to almost every financial transaction in India. Indeed, it is a unique identifier, a digital fingerprint linking an individual to their tax and financial history.
When fraudsters allegedly misuse this critical identity marker for massive, unauthorized transactions, the consequences can be severe. As a result, a bureaucratic labyrinth often follows, becoming a nightmare for the person affected, and it raises serious questions about data security.
Furthermore, concerns about systemic accountability and the fight against tax evasion are also heightened.

This blog post delves into the high-profile grievance of Yogi M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh). He claims someone has used his PAN (GSWPS0850Q) to facilitate transactions amounting to over ₹34 crore.
In fact, this is despite official tax records showing the e-filing portal has no linked bank account.
His case, documented under registration number PMOPG/E/2025/0037087, exposes a worrying disconnect between ground-level financial activity and central government records.
Consequently, this situation has resulted in an appeal, with a call for a full-scale inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), focused on the allegedly corrupt income tax staff. This income tax grievance therefore raises urgent questions about how PAN-linked identity verification safeguards actually work.

---

🔎 Income Tax Grievance: The Allegation Explained

At the heart of this income tax grievance is the alarming volume of financial activities linked to his PAN, which he asserts are fraudulent and unauthorized. Specifically, the details provided in the grievance paint a picture of extraordinary business activity:

• Business Receipts: ₹4,65,76,920
• GST Purchases: ₹12,20,99,234
• GST Turnover: ₹16,32,92,127
• Rent Received: ₹1,19,09,381
• Total Reported Transactions: ₹34,38,77,662 (approximately ₹34.38 Crore)

Naturally, Mr. Singh questions the Income Tax Department (ITD) with impact. He asks, “If my Permanent account number (PAN) is not being misused, how are these account transactions happening? How can they be connected to my PAN?” Adding to the gravity, records reportedly show ₹3.4 crore deposited as tax against this PAN. This raises a critical, unsettling question at the heart of the matter: how can transactions worth hundreds of millions occur without verifiable bank accounts? And how do corresponding tax deposits happen without such accounts?

---

🏛️ The Departmental Response to the Income Tax Grievance: A Study in Contradiction

However, the responses to this income tax grievance that Mr. Singh received from various wings of the ITD and associated bodies only deepened the mystery. In the applicant’s view, they highlighted the department’s failure to solve the core issue.

1. The Bank Account Vacuum

The investigation officer sought bank details related to the PAN, citing Sections 69 and 69B of the IT Act and Section 91 of the CRPC. Yet the response was bafflingly simple: the department had no details to give.

• NSDL’s Reply: An NSDL official stated that a search based on PAN GSWPS0850Q was conducted. It found “no Beneficial Owner (BO) account is held against the said PAN with any Depository Participants (DPs) of NSDL.”
• Mirzapur Ibo’s Reply: Pravin Kumar Shrivastav, ITO-3(2) Mirzapur, also confirmed a detail. He stated that “Bank details are not available in the database.” This was in reference to PAN GSWPS0850Q in the Income Tax business application report.

This official stance claims the PAN has no linked bank details. Yet it stands in stark, almost impossible contrast to the massive financial transactions the department itself recorded against the same PAN.

2. The Final Closing Remark

This income tax grievance reached a critical juncture when the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Allahabad, closed it on April 1, 2025, with a formal remark:

“PAN:- GSWPS0850Q is lying with ITO, ward -3(2), Mirzapur. On verifying through E filling Portal, it is found that the PAN is registered in the e-filling portal. But, the assessee has not filed ITR for any year. Additionally, no prevalidated bank account details are available… In 26 AS there are some transactions shown for TDS and TCS in different years (copy enclosed).”

In short, the department confirmed the applicant’s core point: the PAN is active, yet bank details are missing from the e-filing portal. Still, Form 26AS shows significant Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and Tax Collected at Source (TCS) transactions, confirming that real financial activity connects to the PAN. Yet standard departmental systems cannot trace the corresponding banking, KYC, and return-filing details.

---

🗣️ The Income Tax Grievance Appeal: Harassment, Maligning, and the CBI Question

Dissatisfied, Mr. Singh escalated this income tax grievance into a formal appeal to the Pr. CCIT Lucknow, Vivek Mishra. In doing so, the appeal shifts focus from a mere transactional query to a systemic failure, accusing the department of harassment and corruption.

The Identity Disconnect

Moreover, the appeal reveals another critical piece of misused information. The registered location on the e-filing portal (05, 04 Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh) is incorrect. It does not belong to the PAN holder, Mahesh Pratap Singh. Furthermore, the e-filing record links the PAN to a mobile number (7024188072) and an email (dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) that the applicant states belong to the “fraudulent person who opened the account.”

The department did not verify the registered location, and it acknowledges this in its own attached report. The appeal cites this failure as a key enabler of the fraud. As a result, this non-verification allowed “various companies and business firms” to allegedly misuse the PAN. Meanwhile, the ITD focused on “streaming arbitrary notices” to the genuine applicant.

The Call for a Central Probe

Above all, the most serious charge is the accusation of widespread tax evasion and corruption within the Income Tax Department. Specifically, the applicant names an officer, Sonal Singh ITO DDIT/ADIT (I&CI), in the first grievance. Mr. Singh argues that since the Income Tax Department is a central government body, it falls under the purview of the CBI. Therefore, he demands an inquiry by the premier investigative agency.

In particular, the appeal casts a strong challenge to the CBI’s role: “What is the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation? Corruption is growing. It is increasing in the Department of Income Tax.” Will the Central Bureau of Investigation only watch the large-scale tax evasion? Are they trusting the senior rank officers of income tax too much?”

Overall, this income tax grievance case has evolved from an individual complaint about identity misuse.
Indeed, it has grown into a significant public interest issue regarding the integrity of India’s tax framework.
The official records confirm the existence of colossal, taxable transactions linked to a PAN.
At the same time, they claim a total lack of associated bank account or KYC data.
This disconnect is a monumental failure of the digital financial ecosystem.
Alternatively, as the complainant alleges, it indicates a sophisticated, large-scale operation.
This would involve tax evasion and corrupt official complicity.
Therefore, the Income Tax Department’s appellate authority must thoroughly investigate this digital anomaly.
Ultimately, the CBI needs to restore public faith in this structure.
The stakes are high: the protection of individual identities and the integrity of national revenue.

Transaction of Rs.343877662 by misusing PAN

Corrupt income tax commissioners must visit in fields to verify records of streaming messages. Central government has been insensitive to issues of corruption