Key takeaways from this blog post

The blog post highlights a critical disconnect between the Income Tax Department’s administrative functions and its responsibility toward citizen security. Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the RTI appeals:

1. The “Accountability Gap” in PAN Security

The Department often limits its role to the “processing and printing” of PAN cards, frequently ignoring its role as the regulator of PAN usage. By directing victims of identity theft to individual banks, the authority abdicates its responsibility to provide a centralized framework for resolving PAN misuse.

2. Misuse of the “Second Schedule” Exemption

Public authorities frequently invoke Section 24 of the RTI Act (which exempts intelligence and security agencies) to deny information. However, this ignores the legal proviso that allegations of corruption and human rights violations must be disclosed, regardless of the agency’s exempt status.

3. Procedural Hurdles as a Deterrent

The status of “First Appeal Returned to Applicant” indicates a breakdown in the RTI process. Instead of transferring requests to the correct department (as required by Section 6(3)), authorities often force the citizen to restart the filing process, causing “mental torture” and administrative fatigue.

4. Victimization of the Innocent

The current system tends to target the PAN holder (the victim) with legal notices rather than investigating the misusers (the perpetrators). This creates a “safe haven” for tax evaders while placing the burden of proof on the individual whose identity has been compromised.

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, using the specific case of Mr. Yogi M P Singh as a lens to view the procedural hurdles within the Income Tax Department.

---

The RTI Labyrinth: PAN Misuse, Institutional Evasion, and the Fight for Transparency

In an era where data is considered the new oil, the Permanent Account Number (PAN) serves 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. The recent RTI appeals of Yogi M P Singh highlight a troubling trend: the use of procedural technicalities to shield authorities from providing substantive answers regarding PAN misuse and corruption.

1. The Core Issue: PAN Hijacking and Financial Vulnerability

The genesis of this dispute lies in a startling discovery: a single PAN being linked to 13 different bank accounts without the owner’s consent. For any citizen, this is 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 how many bank accounts 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 response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) exemplifies what many RTI activists call the “ping-pong” strategy. Instead of addressing the systemic guidelines, the CPIO claimed the office only handles the “processing, printing, and dispatch” of PAN cards.

This creates a logic gap. If the Income Tax Department is the sole issuing authority for PAN, it stands to reason they are also the custodians of the rules governing its use. By directing the appellant to “contact the respective banks,” the authority effectively abdicates its responsibility as a regulator.

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

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

Organizations listed in the Second Schedule (usually intelligence and security agencies) are generally exempt from the RTI Act. However, there is a critical legal caveat that the authorities often overlook:

Section 24 (1) Proviso: Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.

Mr. Singh’s argument is grounded in this proviso. He contends that the misuse of his PAN by fraudulent elements—and the subsequent harassment he faces from tax authorities—constitutes both a matter of corruption and a violation of his human rights through mental and physical harassment.

4. The Human Cost of Institutional Loopholes

Beyond the legal jargon, there is a human element of “mental torture.” When the system targets the “innocent and gullible” because they are easier to locate than the actual tax evaders, it creates a “safe haven” for corrupt staff and sophisticated fraudsters.

The appellant’s frustration is palpable in his submission: “Instead of concentrating on tax evaders, there is wastage of time by targeting innocent people.” This sentiment echoes the plight of thousands who find themselves trapped in a cycle of proving their innocence against automated notices generated by a system that refuses to acknowledge its own loopholes.

---

Comparison of Responses: A Study in Redirection

Point of Inquiry	Official Response	Appellant’s Contention
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.” On May 26, 2025, the appeals were sent back with remarks to “contact the office of Director General of Income Tax (Systems) in New Delhi” or “Chandigarh.” This represents a failure of the internal transfer mechanism. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if a public authority receives a request that belongs to another department, they are duty-bound to transfer it internally—not return it to the citizen to start the process over.

6. Conclusion: The Path Forward

The case of Yogi M P Singh is not just about 13 bank accounts; it is about the accountability of the digital state. For the RTI Act to be meaningful, “Intelligence” and “Investigation” wings cannot use their exempt status 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 organizations.
3. Citizen-Centric PAN Security: The Income Tax Department must provide a clear “SOP for Victims” when a PAN is compromised.

Transparency should not be a game of hide-and-seek. Until the Department moves from “Processing and Printing” to “Protecting and Investigating,” the common citizen remains at the mercy of the very system meant to serve them.

To help you pursue your case with the relevant authorities, I have compiled the contact details for the specific offices mentioned in your RTI appeal remarks.

1. Primary Public Authority (I&CI)

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

The First Appeal (DGICI/A/E/23/00008) directed you here for issues regarding 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 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

• 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

Matter	Authority to Contact	Recommended Action
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).

---

Would you like me to draft a formal letter to the DGIT (Systems) in New Delhi explaining the technical failure of the PAN system in your specific case?