Income tax information and appeal processes are vital components of the tax system, ensuring that taxpayers understand their obligations and rights. Taxpayers are responsible for accurately reporting their income and claiming allowable deductions. If a taxpayer disagrees with their assessed tax liability, they can file an appeal with the appropriate tax authority. This process typically involves submitting necessary documentation, such as financial records and previous tax returns, along with a formal letter outlining the reasons for the appeal. Understanding these procedures helps taxpayers navigate challenges and ensures compliance with tax regulations while safeguarding their financial interests.

Income Tax Information and Appeal: The Unsettling Silence Behind an Alleged ₹350 Million Tax Fraud

A responsible government runs a tax collection system that remains transparent, accountable, and unwavering in its commitment to preventing evasion. But what happens when the same system appears complicit? Or worse, when it fails to act in the face of a massive fraud?

The case presented by Yogi M. P. Singh from Mirzapur casts a disturbing shadow over the Income Tax Department (ITD) and India’s broader financial regulatory environment. At the centre, he alleges misuse of his Permanent Account Number (PAN: GSWPS0850Q). He says fraudsters routed transactions totalling more than ₹343 million through it. As a result, he estimates a tax fraud of about ₹350 million.¹ Yet, he argues the ITD has avoided its mandate despite clear evidence and repeated high-level appeals. Consequently, the record shows contradictory notices and grievances marked “settled” with zero accountability.

This post focuses on income tax information and appeals. It shows how to read departmental data trails, including AIS and DIN-based notices. In addition, it explains how grievance and appeal status updates can shape your next step. Finally, it outlines how to write an appeal narrative when you face PAN misuse and administrative inaction.

---

Income tax information and appeal context: An Ocean of Transactions Tied to a Fictitious Assesses

The Income Tax Department’s own data provides the strongest evidence. For income tax information and appeal purposes, system-generated records carry weight. They frame the compliance issue, such as why someone did not file an ITR. They also frame the dispute issue, such as whether the underlying information is accurate. Here, the AIS notice links the applicant’s PAN (GSWPS0850Q) to high-value activity in FY 2022-23 (DIN: INSIGHT/CMP/02/2024-25/81230002569970001, dated 18-03-2025):

• Business Receipts: ₹4,65,76,920.00
• Rent Received: ₹1,16,33,362.00
• Total AIS Value: ₹5,82,10,282.00

However, the alleged total transactions are far greater, involving GST figures:

• 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 Alleged Transaction Amount: ₹34,38,77,662 (over ₹343 Million)

The applicant presents a straightforward defence: “Return filing is not required as the displayed information is not correct/wrong.” In other words, he says fraudsters misused his PAN to evade tax. Moreover, he highlights a key inconsistency. The portal shows no pre-validated bank account details. It also shows he has never filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for any year. So, how did anyone run such huge business transactions under this PAN?

---

🔎 Income tax information and appeal trail: A Masterclass in Incoherence

The communication record shows repeated contradictions and bureaucratic evasion inside the Income Tax Department. From an income tax information and appeal standpoint, these gaps matter. They decide what a taxpayer can rely on, such as portal entries, notice language, and inquiry status. They also decide what the taxpayer must challenge formally. Meanwhile, the miscommunication erodes public trust. It also leaves taxpayers stuck between instructions that conflict with each other.

1. The Contradictory Notices

First, the ITD sent a notice to the applicant (DIN: INSIGHT/CMP/02/2024-25/81230002569970001). It asked him to explain why he did not file an ITR despite high-value transactions. This step is standard. It also aligns with data-matching practice.

However, the departmental response in the Appeal Status (CBODT/E/A/25/0001000) is entirely contradictory:

• The Sub Appellate Authority confirms that the PAN is registered but the “assesses have not filed ITR for any year and no prevalidated bank account details are available.”
• It also states, “no information regarding assessment and demand is available.”

However, the department’s own records also support his core argument. They show a PAN with no legitimate ITR history and no verified banking links. Yet, the same PAN appears in massive transaction reporting. Therefore, the notices raise a basic question. Why does the department demand replies based on data it cannot reconcile with a genuine taxpayer? The applicant highlights the inconsistency in plain words: “One will say that please reply to the notice, otherwise a penalty of rupees 500 per day will be imposed, and the other will say that there are no bank details… what a contradictory situation you have created.”

2. The ‘Zero Outcome’ Inquiry

Next, the applicant says the department treated his representations as “tax evasion petitions.” He adds that the head of the Mirzapur office (Delhi of Income Tax) ordered an inquiry. However, the record reports the outcome as “zero.”

This point damages the ITD’s credibility the most. The department ordered an inquiry into a tax fraud of this scale. Yet it produced no visible action. It also offered no transparent outcome. Consequently, the record suggests either gross incompetence or deliberate avoidance.

3. The ‘Settled’ Grievance: A Smokescreen

Finally, the department closed the grievance (Registration Number: CBODT/E/2025/0013108). In the final reply, it stated:

In this case, the matter is examined and kindly find attached herewith the bank accounts details retrieved from the system. Grievance may kindly be treated as settled with respect to this office.

This reply to shrugs off the core issue. The applicant had already questioned how anyone. The office shared bank account details “retrieved from the system.” However, that step does not amount to an accountable investigation. It also does not answer the central questions below.

• Who operated these accounts?
• How was the applicant’s PAN linked to these transactions?
• What action has been taken against the fraudulent persons (Mobile Number: 7024188072, E-mail: dngoldraipur18@gmail.com) who allegedly committed the fraud?
• Why were more than 200 other companies mentioned in the Tax Information Summary, also allegedly involved in evasion, left untouched?

When the department calls a major fraud complaint “settled” without identifying the perpetrators, it avoids transparency. It also avoids accountability. Moreover, it leaves the ITD’s data failure unexplained. This is not an investigation. Instead, it reads like a cover-up by procedure.

What to do next: organise your income tax information and appeal

• Collect income tax information: keep copies/screenshots of AIS/Annual Information Statement entries, notice DIN, dates, and any portal acknowledgements.
• Write a one-page timeline: list every notice, reply, grievance registration number, and appeal status reference in chronological order.
• Separate two questions in your appeal: (1) whether the transactions are yours (identity/PAN misuse) and (2) whether the department followed due process after being informed.
• Ask for specific outcomes: correction of linked information where applicable, written confirmation of inquiry actions taken, and details of enforcement steps against the actual operators of the accounts/entities.
• Keep language factual: quote notice text and portal statements and avoid assumptions you cannot prove.

---

🏛️ Addressing the Prime Ministerial Question: Honesty and Accountability

The applicant asks a pointed question: “If our prime minister sir is so honest why is the Department of income tax escaping from the tax fraud of rupees 350 million?” He frames it as a challenge to the government’s stated commitment to fight corruption and black money.

People judge a leader’s honesty through the institutions they run. Therefore, the question becomes institutional. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) received a related grievance (PMOPG/E/2024/0184722). However, the downstream ITD actions still show contradiction and dismissal.

This issue has moved beyond technical tax law. It now tests public faith in governance. A private citizen says criminals misused his identity to commit large-scale financial crimes. He also says he submitted detailed evidence again and again. Yet the machinery appears to close matters procedurally rather than pursue prosecution. Consequently, public trust erodes.

The Department of Income Tax must treat the alleged tax fraud of ₹350 million as its core subject. Yet, the record suggests the department has not pursued it vigorously. That gap matters even more after internal acknowledgements and ordered inquiries. Therefore, this case calls for immediate, high-level intervention.

This case combines PAN misuse, identity theft, tax evasion, and alleged inaction inside the revenue department. In short, it involves serious financial crime. Moreover, the department’s apparent evasion points to systemic failure:

1. Data Integrity Failure: The system is linking enormous transactions to a dormant, unverified PAN.
2. Investigative Failure: Ordered inquiries yield “zero” results.³
3. Accountability Failure: Grievances are closed without addressing the core crime or identifying the culprits.

The gravity of the situation demands that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) not just “examine” the matter and retrieve bank details but initiate a transparent, criminal investigation in coordination with the police, as the applicant rightly suggests. The silence over the more than 200 other alleged evading companies further compounds the impression of selective enforcement.

India’s financial system depends on swift, transparent resolution of cases like this. The authorities must identify the perpetrators behind the ₹350 million fraud. They must also address failures inside the Income Tax Department. Until then, taxpayers will face uncertainty. They will also struggle with income tax information and appeal processes that rely on incomplete or contradictory records.

Weblinks of concerned public authorities

CPGRAMS – Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (Public Grievance Portal of Government of India): https://pgportal.gov.in/ [pgportal.gov.in]Income Tax e-Filing “Submit Grievance” (e-Nivaran): https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/all-topics/e-filing-services/submit-grievance [incometax.gov.in]Income Tax “How to Raise Grievances” User Manual: https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/how-to-raise-grievances-UM [incometax.gov.in]