📢 Highlighted Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse of the Appellate Authority

The following is the essential text from the “Closing Remarks”. Notably, this is from the CBDT Investigation Wing for your appeals, which was officially closed on 26/11/2025. Therefore, these Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse are important for understanding the overall implications for your case.

The Department considered the grievance of the assessee complainant and conducted enquiries in the case. Specifically, the enquiries revealed that various persons had misused the PAN of the assessee. Consequently, the Department immediately focused verification proceedings on the HRA claimant third parties who had misused the PAN of the assessee. Subsequently, the Department issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to various parties who misused the PAN. Out of these parties, some HRA claimants replied and accepted their mistakes; as a result, these parties updated their respective ITRs and paid due taxes. Furthermore, the Department responded appropriately by providing replies to the queries that the investigation agency made in the case of Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh. Till date, the Department has created no demand against complainant. Hence, officials may treat the present CPGRAMS appeal as settled.

🎯 Analysis of the Pacifying Motive

In particular, the authority’s closing remarks use specific language to create a conclusion of “settlement” by addressing the department’s liability rather than fully addressing the victim’s stated goals regarding the Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse.

Department’s Statement (Acknowledgment & Action)	Underlying Motive
“PAN of the assessee has been misused by various persons.”	Validation: Acknowledges the core truth of your complaint to establish credibility.
“Verification proceedings has immediately been turned towards the HRA claimant third parties…”	Action Shown: Demonstrates that the department is actively pursuing some wrongdoers, fulfilling their duty of revenue collection.
“…accepted their mistakes and updated their respective ITRs and paid due taxes.”	Resolution of Tax Leakage: Proves that the department recovered the due revenue, thereby justifying the successful outcome of their inquiry.

Department’s Statement (Resolution & Case Closure)	Underlying Motive
“…no demand has been created against complainant.” (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)	Removal of Liability: This is the most direct pacifying statement. It declares that you are not financially liable to the ITD. This is regarding the fraudulent transactions. This is often the highest priority for the ITD in such cases.
“Department has duly submitted reply to the quires made by the investigation agency…”	Claim of Cooperation: Counteracts your claim of non-cooperation without providing proof or detail on what was submitted (e.g., were the bank details for the ₹350M fraud provided?).
“…the present cpgram appeal may be treated as settled.”	Justification for Closure: Uses the above points to formally justify closing the numerous appeals. This action helps clear the file from the grievance portal.

Unmet Demands and Unresolved Concerns

In essence, the comments satisfy the department’s mandate, which includes collecting revenue and confirming no tax demand on the victim. However, they fail to satisfy your demands. In fact, this involves full AIS rectification, action on the ₹350M crime, stopping local harassment, and complete police cooperation. Ultimately, this is a common tactic to administratively close complex, multi-jurisdictional grievances.

📢 Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse: Why Is the Income Tax Department Harassing the Complainant?

For example, the case of Yogi M. P. Singh, documented under grievance number DOPAT/E/2025/0011867, illustrates a critical failure point in India’s grievance redressal system and tax administration. Specifically, the complainant is a confirmed victim of a massive ₹350 million tax fraud through PAN misuse. Yet, despite this status, they are persistently fighting departmental harassment and non-cooperation.

---

🛑 Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse: ₹350 Million Fraud and PAN Misuse

Background and Overview of PAN Misuse

Fundamentally, the entire ordeal stems from the fraudulent misuse of the complainant’s Permanent Account Number (PAN: GSWPS0850Q). Indeed, unknown entities have used this information to carry out illicit financial transactions. Consequently, these transactions exceed ₹34,38,77,662, which is approximately ₹350 million.

Key Aspects of the Alleged Crime

1. The Alleged Crime (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

First, the applicant suffered identity theft and tax fraud. As a result, the fraud is substantial and involves numerous companies and individuals who misused the PAN. For instance, they often used it to claim fraudulent House Rent Allowance (HRA). Presently, the state police are investigating this crime under Mirzapur Police FIR No. 291/2023.

2. The Unjust Treatment

Despite being a victim of identity theft, the complainant faces persistent harassment through arbitrary notices issued by the Income Tax Department. Furthermore, the authorities have treated the victim as an offender rather than investigating the perpetrators behind the fraud. Additionally, the department has failed to clean up the fraudulent entries from the Annual Information Statement (AIS) and has withheld key information from the police investigation.

3. Ongoing Appeals and Demands for Justice

In addition, the Income Tax Department (ITD) has allegedly been issuing a dozen notices. Specifically, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) in Allahabad is responsible. However, instead of pursuing the perpetrators, they are treating the victim like an offender. Ultimately, the applicant’s core plea is that no offender has been sent behind bars for this massive fraud, which highlights a potential failure of justice.

🚫 The Central Bureaucratic Obstacles

Meanwhile, the complainant faces multiple obstacles while trying to resolve the matter. In total, there are three interconnected bureaucratic hurdles. Namely, the first hurdle is jurisdictional denial, the second is non-cooperation with the police, and the third hurdle involves a refusal to rectify permanent records.

1. Jurisdictional Denial (PCIT Allahabad)

First, the PCIT Allahabad closed the initial grievance (DOPAT/E/2025/0011867) because they claimed the issue was “outside the scope and jurisdiction of this office.” Although centralisation and investigation matters involve other ITD units, the closure passed the burden of finding the “appropriate authority” back to the victim. Consequently, this action effectively denied local redressal for local harassment.

2. Failure to Cooperate with Police (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

Second, the most critical issue is the non-cooperation of Central Government departments, including the ITD and the banking sector. As a consequence, their lack of cooperation is severely affecting the state police investigation related to FIR No. 291/2023.

• Complainant’s Claim: On one hand, the investigation is stalled because the ITD has not furnished the complete bank account details associated with the fraudulent ₹350 million transactions to the Investigating Officer.
• ITD’s Claim (in Appeal Closures): On the other hand, the ITD claims they have duly submitted a reply to the queries made by the investigation agency.

Therefore, this contradiction suggests that the ITD’s response may be incomplete. Consequently, it might not allow the police to identify the actual fraudsters, who may differ from the HRA claimants already identified.

3. Refusal to Rectify Core Records (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

Third, despite acknowledging the misuse of the PAN, the ITD has nevertheless not fully addressed the requests to:

• Close Unrelated Proceedings: Specifically, notices like U/s 133(6) for fraudulent entries such as $₹1,12,16,962$ ‘Rent received.’
• Rectify AIS Permanently: In addition, begin by taking steps to permanently remove all fraudulent entries. Specifically, you need to complete this action from your Annual Information Statement (AIS), as this is essential for clearing the applicant’s name in official records.

---

➡️ The Appeal: Seeking High-Level Intervention (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

Overview of the High-Level Appeal

Recognizing that the issue requires cross-departmental coordination, the complainant filed a high-level appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003677). Consequently, they requested that the Ministry of Personnel and Training forward-refer the matter to the highest authority in order to:

1. Stop Centralization: Prevent the case from being transferred to the Central Circle-5, New Delhi. Thus, this keeps the matter localized for the criminal fraud investigation.
2. Mandate Cooperation: Direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to compel all concerned ITD units—including New Delhi and the Investigation Wing—so that they must fully cooperate with the Mirzapur Police.
3. Order Rectification: Issue a directive to clean up the complainant’s permanent tax records (AIS) and stop all harassment notices.

Ultimately, this ongoing appeal represents the victim’s final administrative hope for justice. Not only does it seek relief from harassment, but it also calls for official cooperation to bring the actual tax criminals to justice.

The Role of the CBDT in Your Grievance

Key Functions and Jurisdictional Scope of the CBDT

Specifically, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is a statutory body that operates under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.³ In this capacity, it performs two critical functions:

1. Policy and Planning: It provides essential inputs for the policy and planning of direct taxes (like Income Tax).⁴
2. Administration and Enforcement: It is directly responsible for administering all direct tax laws. It enforces these laws through its subordinate agency, the Income Tax Department (ITD).⁵

As shown below, the CBDT’s role covers all the central issues in your case:

Your Issue	CBDT’s Relevant Jurisdiction
Harassment by officials/Grievances	The Chairman, CBDT handles matters relating to the Grievance Cell and Inspection Division.
Jurisdictional Issues (Centralization)(Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)	The CBDT sets up the Income Tax Department. It structures the Income Tax Department. Additionally, it oversees the Transfers and Postings of officers (including CCIT/PCIT levels). It has the authority to decide if a case should be centralized.
Non-Cooperation with Police/Fraud	CBDT supervises and controls the work of all Directors General of Income Tax (Investigation). It also manages the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (Central). They oversee the processing of complaints regarding tax evasion and matters related to searches, seizures, and surveys.
Rectification of AIS/Notices	CBDT frames guidelines for income tax procedures and issues circulars to clarify tax procedures. It can direct the rectification of fraudulent entries in your Annual Information Statement (AIS). CBDT also has the power to stop unwarranted notices.

---

Why the CBDT is the Appropriate Authority

Direct Enforcement Authority of CBDT

To be sure, while local offices (like the PCIT Allahabad) and specific investigation wings (like the DDIT/ADIT (Inv.)) carry out the actual work, they all ultimately report to the CBDT.

Indeed, the core problem, as highlighted in your appeal, is that the issue requires coordination and a binding directive across multiple geographical and functional ITD units—including Allahabad, the New Delhi Investigation Wing, and the Central Circle. Therefore, only the CBDT has the overarching authority to issue such directives and compel all these different wings to:

• Stop the harassment.
• Cooperate fully with the Mirzapur Police (FIR No. 291/2023).
• Rectify your PAN records and AIS.

In conclusion, your latest appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003677) is correct to ask for the matter to be referred to the CBDT or the Secretary, Revenue, Ministry of Finance, as they are the authorities with the necessary high-level jurisdiction to resolve this systemic coordination failure.

Thus, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is indeed the apex authority responsible for everything that has transpired over the last five years regarding the Income Tax Department (ITD) actions described in your grievance.¹

Furthermore, the CBDT serves as the ultimate governing body for the Income Tax Department, holding full jurisdiction and authority to address all the issues you raised.²

---

The Role of the CBDT in Your Grievance (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

As previously noted, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is a statutory body operating under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.³ In this role, it performs two critical functions:

Primary Responsibilities and Organizational Scope

1. Policy and Planning: It provides essential inputs for the policy and planning of direct taxes (like Income Tax).
2. Administration and Enforcement: It administers all direct tax laws. It enforces them through its subordinate agency, the Income Tax Department (ITD).

Consequently, the CBDT’s role covers all the central issues in your case:

Your Issue	CBDT’s Relevant Jurisdiction
Harassment by officials/Grievances	The Chairman, CBDT handles matters relating to the Grievance Cell and Inspection Division.
Jurisdictional Issues (Centralization)	The CBDT sets up the Income Tax Department. It structures the department and oversees the Transfers and Postings of officers (including CCIT/PCIT levels). It has the authority to decide if a case should be centralized.
Non-Cooperation with Police/Fraud (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)	CBDT supervises and controls the work of all Directors General of Income Tax (Investigation). It also oversees the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (Central). They oversee the processing of complaints regarding tax evasion and matters related to searches, seizures, and surveys.
Rectification of AIS/Notices	CBDT frames guidelines for income tax procedures and issues circulars to clarify tax procedures. It holds the ultimate authority. CBDT can direct the rectification of fraudulent entries in your Annual Information Statement (AIS). It can also stop unwarranted notices.

Why the CBDT is the Appropriate Authority

Although local offices (like the PCIT Allahabad) and specific investigation wings (like the DDIT/ADIT (Inv.)) carry out the actual work, they all report directly to the CBDT.

Need for Cross-Departmental Coordination

As a result, the core problem, as highlighted in your appeal, is that the issue requires coordination. Specifically, a binding directive is necessary across multiple geographical and functional ITD units—including Allahabad, the New Delhi Investigation Wing, and the Central Circle. Therefore, only the CBDT has the overarching authority to issue such directives and compel all these different wings to:

• Stop the harassment.
• Cooperate fully with the Mirzapur Police (FIR No. 291/2023).
• Rectify your PAN records and AIS. (Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse)

In summary, your latest appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003677) correctly asks for the matter to be referred to the CBDT or the Secretary, Revenue. Indeed, they are the authorities with the necessary high-level jurisdiction to resolve this systemic coordination failure.ue. Indeed, they are the authorities with the necessary high-level jurisdiction to resolve this systemic coordination failure.jurisdiction to resolve this systemic coordination failure.

Related Posts like Closing Remarks on PAN Misuse

• Demand for CBI Investigation into Tax Fraud
• RTI Inquiry on PAN Misuse in Mirzapur
• ₹500 Million PAN Fraud: A Call for Justice in Uttar Pradesh
• Reporting Tax Fraud: A Case Study
• Understanding PAN Identity Theft: A Case Study