📢 Highlighted Closing Remarks of the Appellate Authority

The following is the essential text from the “Closing Remarks” of the CBDT Investigation Wing for your appeals (Closed on 26/11/2025):

The grievance of the assessee complainant has been considered by the Department and enquires has been made in the case. The enquiries revealed that the PAN of the assessee has been misused by various persons. Thus, direction of the verification proceedings has immediately been turned towards the HRA claimant third parties who had misused the PAN of the assessee. The notices under section 133(6) of the Act have been issued to various parties (who misused the PAN). Out of these parties, some HRA claimant replied and some of them accepted their mistakes and updated their respective ITRs and paid due taxes. It is further submitted that the Department has duly submitted reply to the quires made by the investigation agency in the case of Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh and till date no demand has been created against complainant. Hence, the present cpgram appeal may be treated as settled.

---

🎯 Analysis of the Pacifying Motive

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:

Department’s Statement (Pacifying Element)	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.
“…no demand has been created against complainant.”	Removal of Liability: This is the most direct pacifying statement, declaring that you are not financially liable to the ITD for 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, recurring appeals, clearing the file from the grievance portal.

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

📢 Victim of Identity Theft: Why Is the Income Tax Department Harassing the Complainant?

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. Despite being the confirmed victim of a massive ₹350 million tax fraud through PAN misuse, the complainant is persistently fighting departmental harassment and non-cooperation.

---

🛑 The Core Grievance: ₹350 Million Fraud and PAN Misuse

The entire ordeal stems from the fraudulent misuse of the complainant’s Permanent Account Number (PAN: GSWPS0850Q) by unknown entities, resulting in illicit financial transactions exceeding ₹34,38,77,662 (approx. ₹350 Million).

1. The Alleged Crime

The applicant is a victim of identity theft and tax fraud. The fraud is substantial, involving numerous companies and individuals who misused the PAN, often for claiming fraudulent House Rent Allowance (HRA). This crime is officially under investigation by the state police (Mirzapur Police FIR No. 291/2023).

2. The Unjust Treatment

Instead of pursuing the perpetrators, the Income Tax Department (ITD), particularly the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) in Allahabad, has allegedly been issuing a dozen notices and treating the victim like an offender. The applicant’s core plea is that no offender has been sent behind bars for this massive fraud, highlighting a potential failure of justice.

---

🚫 The Central Bureaucratic Obstacles

The complainant’s attempts to resolve the matter are repeatedly blocked by three interconnected bureaucratic hurdles: jurisdictional denial, non-cooperation with police, and refusal to rectify permanent records.

1. Jurisdictional Denial (PCIT Allahabad)

The initial grievance (DOPAT/E/2025/0011867) was closed by the PCIT Allahabad, who claimed the issue was “outside the scope and jurisdiction of this office.” While technically the centralization and investigation matters involve other ITD units, the closure passed the burden of finding the “appropriate authority” back to the victim, effectively denying local redressal for local harassment.

2. Failure to Cooperate with Police

The most critical issue is the non-cooperation of Central Government departments (ITD and the banking sector) with the state police investigation (FIR No. 291/2023).

• Complainant’s Claim: 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): The ITD claims they have “duly submitted reply to the quires made by the investigation agency.”

The contradiction suggests that the ITD’s response may be incomplete or insufficient to allow the police to identify the actual fraudsters, who may be different from the HRA claimants already identified.

3. Refusal to Rectify Core Records

Despite acknowledging that the PAN was misused, the ITD has failed to fully address 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: Initiate steps to permanently remove all fraudulent entries from the complainant’s Annual Information Statement (AIS), which is essential for clearing the applicant’s name in official records.

---

➡️ The Appeal: Seeking High-Level Intervention

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

1. Stop Centralization: Prevent the case from being transferred to the Central Circle-5, New Delhi, keeping 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 (New Delhi and Investigation Wing) to 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.

This ongoing appeal represents the victim’s final administrative hope for justice, relief from harassment, and official cooperation to bring the actual tax criminals to justice.

---

The Role of the CBDT in Your Grievance

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is a statutory body under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.³ 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 the administration and enforcement of all direct tax laws through its subordinate agency, the Income Tax Department (ITD).⁵

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 and structures the Income Tax 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	CBDT has supervision and control over the work of all Directors General of Income Tax (Investigation) and 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 has the ultimate authority to direct the rectification of fraudulent entries in your Annual Information Statement (AIS) and stop unwarranted notices.

---

Why the CBDT is the Appropriate Authority

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

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 (Allahabad, New Delhi Investigation Wing, and the Central Circle). 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.

Your latest appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003677) correctly asks 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.

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

The CBDT is the ultimate governing body for the Income Tax Department and has the jurisdiction and authority to address all the issues you raised.²

---

The Role of the CBDT in Your Grievance

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is a statutory body under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.³ 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 the administration and enforcement of all direct tax laws through its subordinate agency, the Income Tax Department (ITD).⁵

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 and structures the Income Tax 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	CBDT has supervision and control over the work of all Directors General of Income Tax (Investigation) and 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 has the ultimate authority to direct the rectification of fraudulent entries in your Annual Information Statement (AIS) and stop unwarranted notices.

---

Why the CBDT is the Appropriate Authority

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

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 (Allahabad, New Delhi Investigation Wing, and the Central Circle). 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.

Your latest appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003677) correctly asks 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.