Key Takeaways: Income Tax & PAN Misuse — What This Blog Post Reveals

This blog post highlights a critical disconnect, specifically focusing on Income tax & PAN misuse. It reveals gaps in the Income Tax Department’s administrative functions. These gaps affect their responsibility toward citizen security in cases of PAN misuse. To explore this issue, here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the RTI appeals, each illustrating a different aspect of the overarching challenge:

The Income Tax Department limits its role to issuing PAN cards. It refers identity theft victims to banks instead of providing a unified resolution process. This approach leaves citizens at risk.

2. Misuse of the “Second Schedule” Exemption

Public authorities frequently use Section 24 of the RTI Act. They exempt listed intelligence and security agencies from responding to requests. However, Section 24 still requires the disclosure of information. This includes matters related to corruption and human rights violations, regardless of the agency’s exempt status.

3. Procedural Hurdles as a Deterrent

The status of “First Appeal Returned to Applicant” reflects a breakdown in the RTI process. The RTI Act requires authorities to transfer RTI requests to the relevant department. They should do this when they receive a request that does not concern their office. Instead, authorities often force the citizen to restart the filing process, causing “mental torture” and administrative fatigue.

4. Victimisation of the Innocent

The system targets PAN holders with legal notices, not the offenders. This approach protects tax evaders and places an unfair burden on victims.

5. Need for Systemic Reform

The post advocates for:

• Mandatory internal transfers of RTI requests.
• Clear legal provisions for compensation in cases of identity theft.
• Enhanced transparency within the “Investigation” wings when public interest and fraud are involved.

This blog post breaks down the systemic challenges faced by RTI appellants in India. It focuses on issues regarding Income Tax and PAN misuse. By using the specific case of Mr. Yogi M P Singh, the discussion transitions from analysis. It takes a closer look at the procedural hurdles within the Income Tax Department.

---

With this background, we delve deeper into the broader context of the RTI process. We focus on Income Tax, PAN Misuse, and Institutional Evasion. There is also the persistent quest for transparency.

Data is considered the new oil. The Permanent Account Number(PAN) acts as the primary digital identifier for an Indian citizen’s financial identity. However, when that identity is compromised, the very systems designed to protect the citizen often become fortresses of bureaucracy. Indeed, the recent RTI appeals of Yogi M P Singhhighlight a troubling trend in Income Tax and PAN misuse cases. They reveal the use of procedural technicalities. These technicalities shield authorities from providing substantive answers regarding fraud and corruption.

1. The Core Issue: PAN Hijacking & Income Tax Notices

The genesis of this dispute lies in a startling discovery. A single PAN was linked to 13 different bank accounts without the owner’s consent. For any citizen, this is clearly a red flag for identity theft and financial fraud.

When Mr Singh approached the Directorate General of Income Tax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigations), he sought three fundamental clarifications:

• The legal limit on the number of bank accounts that can be linked to a single PAN.
• The legal provisions for claiming compensation when a PAN is misused.
• The rationale behind the Department serving notices to the victim (the PAN holder) rather than the perpetrators of the fraud.

2. The “Not My Department” Syndrome

The CPIO commonly uses the ‘ping-pong’ strategy, claiming to handle only PAN card issuance, not addressing broader PAN misuse guidelines.

This creates a clear logic gap in how Income Tax and PAN misuse complaints are handled. The Income Tax Department is the sole issuing authority for PAN. It stands to reason they are also the custodians. They govern the rules of its use. By directing the appellant to “contact the respective banks,” the authority effectively abdicates its regulatory responsibilities.

3. The Shield of the Second Schedule: Section 24 & Its Limits

The second appeal (DGICI/A/E/23/00007) introduces a more significant legal barrier. In this case, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh, denied information. He invoked the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.

Organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 are primarily intelligence and security agencies. They are generally exempt from the Right to Information Act under Section 24. However, there is a critical legal caveat that authorities often overlook:

Section 24 (1) Proviso of the RTI Act states: Information pertaining to allegations of corruption shall not be excluded under this sub-section. Human rights violations are also not excluded. This is applicable even for exempt agencies listed in the Second Schedule. Information related to allegations of corruption must remain included.

Mr Singh argues that the misuse of his PAN constitutes corruption. The resulting harassment also constitutes human rights violations under the RTI Act proviso.

4. The Human Cost: Income Tax & PAN Misuse

Beyond legal issues, ‘mental torture’ arises when authorities target victims instead of tax evaders, creating safe zones for fraudsters.

The appellant shares: ‘Instead of targeting tax evaders, innocent people are harassed.’ This reflects the experience of many facing repeat notices due to system flaws.

---

Comparison of Responses

Max Bank Accounts per PAN	“Contact individual banks.”	Guidelines are issued by IT Dept; they should know.
Compensation for Misuse	“Contact appropriate authority.”	PAN is a tool of the IT Dept; they should define the remedy.
Why target the Victim?	“Done as per IT Act 1961.”	This targets the innocent while letting evaders escape.

---

5. The Dead-End of “Returned to Applicant”

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of these documents is the status: “FIRST APPEAL RETURNED TO APPLICANT.” Authorities returned the appeals on May 26, 2025. They instructed to “contact the office of Director General of Income Tax (Systems) in New Delhi” or “Chandigarh.” This situation clearly shows the failure of the internal transfer mechanism required under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. This section mandates that, if a public authority receives a request from another department, it must transfer it internally. It should not return it to the citizen for them to restart the process.

6. Conclusion: Fixing Income Tax & PAN Misuse

The case of Yogi M P Singhis not just about 13 bank accounts. It is, above all, a landmark example. Moreover, It shows how Income Tax and PAN misuse can devastate an innocent citizen’s financial life. It also affects their mental well-being. For the RTI Act to be meaningful, “Intelligence” units should not use their exempt status without discretion. “Investigation” wings cannot hide behind it as an absolute veil, especially when identity theft is involved.

The necessary steps for reform are clear:

1. Mandatory Internal Transfers: Authorities must stop returning appeals and start transferring them to the correct desk.
2. Corruption Exceptions: The RTI Commission must strictly enforce the corruption/human rights proviso for Second Schedule organisations.
3. Citizen-Centric PAN Security: The Income Tax Department must provide a clear “Standard Operating Procedure for Victims of PAN Misuse.” This is necessary when a PAN is compromised. This ensures accountability at every level.

Take immediate action: Submit your RTI appeals through the appropriate internal channels. Demand that authorities fulfil their obligation to transfer—not return—requests. Cite your rights regarding corruption and human rights disclosures. Let’s hold the system accountable and push for lasting reform together.

1. Primary Public Authority (I&CI) (Income tax & PAN misuse)

Directorate General of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation)

Head of Office: Ms Himalini Kashyap (DGIT)

Phone: 011-24363577

Email: dgit.icinv@incometax.gov.in

RTI Nodal Officer Email (as per your document): aditadmin.ici.delhi@incometaxindia.gov.in

Address: 2nd Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. DGIT (Systems) – New Delhi (Income tax & PAN misuse)

The First Appeal (DGICI/A/E/23/00008) directed you here regarding issues related to PAN linking and system loopholes.

DGIT (Systems) Delhi: Sh. Manu Malik

Office Phone: 011-23519077 / 011-23626820

Email: dgit.systems.delhi@incometax.gov.in / sanjay@incometaxindia.gov.in (HQ)

Address: Ground Floor, ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055.

3. DGIT (Investigation) – Chandigarh

The Second Appeal (DGICI/A/E/23/00007) directed you here regarding allegations of corruption and Income Tax & PAN misuse.

DGIT (Inv.) Chandigarh: Ms Vatsalaa Jha

Office Phone: 0172-2700431 / 0172-2700482

Email: dgit.inv.chandigarh@incometax.gov.in

Address: Central Revenue Building, 1st Floor, Sector-17E, Chandigarh-160017.

4. Important Web Links (Income tax & PAN misuse)

Official RTI Portal (Central): rtionline.gov.in (Use this to file a Second Appeal to the CIC if needed).

Income Tax Department Directory: incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/about-us/who-we-are

PAN Grievance Portal: Incometaxindia.gov.in – PAN Grievances

---

Summary Table of Action Points (Income tax & PAN misuse)

Systemic PAN Loopholes	DGIT (Systems)	Write a formal letter detailing the 13 linked accounts.
Fraud & Corruption	DGIT (Inv.) Chandigarh	File a grievance specifically citing “Human Rights Violation” and “Corruption” to bypass Section 24.
Appeal Status	Nodal Officer (Delhi)	Email aditadmin.ici.delhi@incometaxindia.gov.in to ask why the appeal was not transferred under Section 6(3).

---