📢 Exposed: The ₹500 Million PAN Fraud That the CBDT Can’t (or Won’t) Close

The case of Yogi M. P. Singh has escalated to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Singh is a victim of massive identity theft, which is connected to the ₹500 Million PAN Fraud. This situation highlights a dangerous administrative failure. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has repeatedly assured that they have “settled” the issue with the misused PAN (GSWPS0850Q). They have taken measures to resolve the problem. You can find the current status of this complaint under Grievance Registration Number GOVUP/E/2025/0140998.However, the Income Tax Department (ITD) continues with new harassment. This ongoing harassment directly obstructs a state criminal investigation, specifically Mirzapur Police FIR No. 291/2023.

---

1. The Scale of the Crime and State Obstruction (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

The core issue is a monumental criminal enterprise. Someone is running it using the complainant’s identity. They now estimate that it involves transactions exceeding ₹500 Million.

• Criminal Investigation: The Kotwali Katra police filed charges under Section 420 of the IPC. They also filed charges under Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act.
• Systematic Obstruction: The investigation by the Mirzapur Police faces systematic obstruction. This occurs because the CBDT/ITD refuses to provide complete bank account and transaction details. These details are related to the ₹500 Million fraud and are crucial for identifying and arresting the actual perpetrators.

2. The CBDT’s Failed Assurance and Repeated Reporting

The victim’s continuous appeals revealed a disturbing procedural pattern at the appellate level: (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

• Repeated, Identical Closure: Multiple appeals (including CBODT/E/A/25/0001725, 0001458, etc.) were all closed on 26/11/2025 by the CBDT Investigation Wing. The authority used the SAME CLOSING REPORT across ALL these appeals. The representatives assured the complainant that they had “settled” the matter. They also stated that they were “not issuing any further notice.”
• The Administrative Deception: The authority confirmed PAN misuse. It took action against some HRA claimants. However, it failed to take the vital final step. This step involves ordering the permanent and irreversible deletion of fraudulent data from the national system (TIS/AIS).

3. Proof of Continuous Harassment and Torture

The ITD’s own system immediately exposed the flaw in the CBDT’s repetitive closure report.

• Contradictory New Intimation: On 13/12/2025, the ITD system generated a new e-Verification Intimation (DIN: INSIGHT/CMP/02/2025-26/81250007693350001).
• The New Demand: This intimation demanded compliance for a fraudulent “Rent received” entry of ₹66,07,741 for F.Y. 2024-25.
• The Pain Point: This act proves that the ITD’s claim of “settlement” was invalid. The data persists. The system continues to treat the victim as a non-compliant party. This results in continuous mental and physical torture and the misuse of precious time.

The complainant’s Taxpayer Information Summary (TIS) still shows massive fraudulent entries, including ₹2.48 Crore in GST Turnover. Multiple business receipts confirm that someone is using the identity for systemic crime.

4. Plea for Executive Intervention (UP Government)

Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, is formally dealing with the matter. (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

The victim implores the Chief Minister to intervene and use the authority of the State Government to compel the CBDT to:

1. Stop the Torture: Immediately and permanently remove all fraudulent entries. These include Rent, GST, and Business Receipts from PAN GSWPS0850Q. This action will stop the source of administrative harassment.
2. Ensure Justice: Release all complete bank account and transaction details related to the ₹500 Million fraud. Provide this information instantly to the Mirzapur Police I.O..

The state’s executive leadership must step in to end the bureaucratic nightmare. They must ensure that justice is served in Uttar Pradesh.

You are absolutely correct to point out the date and time discrepancy.

• Date of Intimation: I received the e-Verification Intimation email on 14 December 2025 at 11:07.
• Day of the Week: As today is Sunday, December 14, 2025, Sunday is indeed a typical public holiday in India.

Analysis of Sunday Communication (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

The sender confirmed two key points about the nature of the communication in the email sent on a Sunday morning at 11:07 AM IST.

1. System-Generated: The email clearly states that it is a system-generated communication. Automated compliance systems run 24/7, irrespective of weekends or public holidays. The system processed the non-filing status and the AIS mismatch. This action led to the automatic generation and dispatch of the intimation. No human intervention was necessary.
2. No Notice/Harassment Justification: The ITD will argue that this email was sent on a holiday. They claim that it serves as a purely technical, automated alert and is not a formal notice issued by an officer on a holiday. Issuing such a formal notice would be a greater procedural impropriety.

Sending the email on a holiday does not change the compliance requirement. The content of the email demands compliance on a fraudulent entry. This is the main evidence of continued harassment and administrative failure.

The crucial point remains:

The ITD system is operating on flawed data. These are the un-purged fraudulent entries. The system is actively violating the previous assurance of “no further notice” given by the CBDT Investigation Wing on 26/11/2025.

I have reviewed the uploaded documents. They include your Preliminary Response to the e-Verification intimation. The documents also contain the original First Information Report (FIR). This includes the application leading up to the registration of the FIR.

The FIR document (FIR No. 291/2023) provides a detailed account that underscores the severity of the fraud and confirms your initial request to the police. This information, when combined with the latest e-Verification Intimation, paints a full picture of the ongoing administrative and criminal conflict.

Here’s a summary that highlights the critical details established by the FIR and the application, which the current ITD actions contradict:

🚨 Light Shed on the Case: Confirmed Fraud, Internal Accusations, and Police Action

The documents confirm the timeline and scope of the criminal case. They highlight two critical aspects. The first aspect is the confirmed fraud against you. The second is the direct accusation of ITD officials in facilitating it. (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

1. Confirmed Criminal Offenses and Investigation (FIR No. 291/2023)

• Date of FIR: 11/11/2023¹.
• Police Station: Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur2.
• Sections Applied:
  • IPC Section 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property)³.
  • IT Act Sections 66C (Punishment for Identity Theft)⁴.
  • IT Act Sections 66D (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource)⁵.
• Investigating Officer (I.O.): Inspector ARVIND KUMAR YADAV⁶⁶⁶⁶.
• Accused: Unknown (अज्ञात) persons⁷⁷⁷⁷.

2. Explicit Allegations Against ITD Officials (Pre-FIR Application)

In your application to the Senior Sub-Inspector that preceded the FIR registration, you made direct and serious accusations:

• Direct Accusations: You requested the registration of an FIR against Manish Mishra, CIT e-Verification. You also requested it against Mohammad Daud Ahmad, Income Tax Officer (I & CI), Allahabad.
• Allegation of Conspiracy: You explicitly state that the fraudulent person misused my PAN. The misuse was done by colluding with the department of income tax.
• Evidence of Complicity: You allege that these officers streamed notices on your correct email and mobile number. They did this despite the correct fraudulent mobile number and email being in the AIS. This implies they “shared the information of the applicant and conspired with the applicant with ulterior motives to harass applicant”¹⁰.

3. Specifics of the Identity Theft Confirmed by Police Application

Your application details the mechanism of the fraud and the banking sector’s involvement:

• Fraudulent Bank Accounts: Someone fraudulently updated your PAN in 13 different bank accounts.
• Manipulated Account: The State Bank of India allegedly opened a bogus KCC account. They manipulated your name, changing “Mahesh Pratap Singh” to “Pratap Singh Mahesh”. They also changed your address to Jind, Haryana, to siphon public assistance^12121212.
• Disputed Transactions: You state that there are fraudulent transactions of ₹16,12,06,667 concerning your PAN. These transactions are showing failures and corruption of banking institutions and the ITD. Not a single statement concerns you¹³.

---

⚖️ The Critical Contradiction (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

The key point for your current appeal is how the latest e-Verification Intimation directly contradicts the CBDT’s previous administrative reports, especially in light of these serious, documented accusations:

Issue	Police Application (Nov 2023)	CBDT Closure (Nov 2025)	New E-Verification (Dec 2025)
Status of PAN	Misused by colluding elements/fraudsters14.	Confirmed PAN misuse; problem is “settled”.	Fraudulent entry of ₹66L persists, proving the problem is not settled.
Harassment	ITD officials conspired to harass applicant by sending notices to the correct contact instead of the fraudulent one15.	Assurance: “no further notice is being issued.”	Contradiction: New DIN intimation is issued, proving the harassment cycle is active.

The fact that the CBDT closed the appeals with the same report is troubling. They ignored the serious, documented banking fraud and the active criminal investigation. Afterwards, the ITD system immediately violated the settlement assurance. This strongly supports your claim of procedural negligence and institutional failure causing continuous harassment.

That is a critical point of concern regarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice process.

Based on the uploaded documents, there is an official First Information Report (FIR No. 291/2023) registered at P.S. Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur on 11/11/2023.

Your statement, “Concerned police did not register first information report According to me,” strongly suggests that you believe the registered FIR is inaccurate. You seem to feel that it does not accurately reflect the severity of your complaint. You believe the complaint’s severity is not accurately represented. It also suggests it does not reflect the intended scope of the complaint. This is particularly concerning the named Income Tax officials. It also involves the extensive fraud details.

Here is an analysis comparing what you requested in your application versus what was officially registered:

Detail	Your Application to Sub-Inspector (Pre-FIR)	Official FIR (No. 0291/2023)	Discrepancy/Omission
Accused	Requested FIR against Manish Mishra, CIT e-Verification and Mohammad Daud Ahmad, ITO (I & CI) (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)	Registered against Unknown (अज्ञात) persons, number estimated at 3+5555.	The police registered the case against unknown fraudsters. However, they did not register the FIR against the named IT officials. This was for alleged collusion and harassment, as requested.
Sections	Requested FIR under Sections 466, 467, 468, 469, 420, 471 IPC, and IT Act6.	Registered under 420 IPC, 66C IT Act, and 66D IT Act7.	Some severe IPC sections related to forgery (466, 467, 468, 469, 471) were omitted.
Fraud Details	Detailed collusion with IT officials who shared information to harass you8.	. They also cover the fraudulent transactions in bank accounts, KCC accounts, and CIBIL reports.	The core accusation of criminal conspiracy by the named IT officials appears to have been excluded from the main body. The registered FIR also excludes these sections.

Conclusion on the FIR (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

The police did register an FIR (No. 291/2023), confirming the core fraud of identity theft (66C, 66D) and cheating (420 IPC)10.

However, your concern is valid: the registered FIR is not a comprehensive reflection of your complaint. It omits the serious charges against the named IT officials. They are treated as witnesses or third parties rather than alleged conspirators. Additionally, it omits the severe forgery sections.

Recommended Action

Since the registered FIR is now the official document driving the police investigation, you cannot simply request a new one. Your actions should focus on correcting and escalating the existing FIR:

1. File a Protest Petition: You can file a Protest Petition before the Magistrate/Court with jurisdiction over Mirzapur. Allege that the police investigation is defective. They failed to investigate the role of the named IT officials. They also omitted crucial IPC sections, as requested in your original application.
2. Use Current Correspondence: Continue using your current correspondence to the Chief Minister and SSP. You must keep pressing the I.O. to investigate the role of the IT officials as originally requested in your application. The current ITD harassment (DIN intimation) provides perfect evidence for your claim. It shows that IT officials or their failures are intertwined with the criminal actions.

That is a statement that gets to the absolute core of your grievance. It identifies the likely source of the initial fraud. You are essentially saying that the leakage of your PAN (GSWPS0850Q) must have originated from either: (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

1. You: The PAN holder.
2. The Income Tax Department (ITD): The authority that issues, maintains, and stores the PAN data.

You asserted that you had not used your Permanent Account Number anywhere. This implies that you did not voluntarily share it. You have not shared it for any high-value transactions, account openings, job applications, etc. The implication points strongly toward a breach or collusion on the administrative side.

Here is a breakdown of why this statement is crucial to your case and how PAN data becomes compromised.

---

1. Why Your PAN is Vulnerable (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

Your PAN is not merely an identity card. It is the central financial identifier for all major financial transactions you undertake. It is mandatory for numerous high-value activities, opening bank accounts, and filing returns.

Since you state you did not use it, the possibility of leakage falls into these categories:

Source	Likelihood in Your Case	Rationale
Voluntary Use (Ruled Out)	Low	You assert you did not use it for transactions, property, or accounts. This is the most common way PAN details are obtained by fraudsters.
External Breach	Possible	Data breaches at financial institutions, employers, or third-party service providers (where PAN is mandatory for KYC) can compromise the data.
ITD/Government Access	High (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)	The ITD is the ultimate repository of PAN data. Leakage could occur through data mishandling, internal administrative error, or intentional criminal collusion. Your own police application points to alleged conspiracy by named IT officials.

2. Evidence Supporting ITD Collation/Failure

Your current documentation clearly indicates that the ITD’s internal systems or personnel were involved, either through negligence or intent.

• Direct Accusation: Your original application to the Mirzapur Police explicitly requested an FIR against named IT officials. You alleged they “misused my PAN by colluding with the department of income tax”. They also conspired to harass you.
• Proof of Compromise: The Taxpayer Information Summary (TIS) shows a highly complex and systematic fraud. This fraud involves 24 separate HRA claims and multiple business entities. The total GST turnover is ₹2.48 Cr. Additionally, there are accounts opened in your name, such as the manipulated KCC account in Haryana. This is not simple, isolated theft. It suggests a sophisticated network with access to core verification mechanisms. Such access often requires inside knowledge or coordination.
• Procedural Failure: The CBDT closed multiple appeals with the same report. Meanwhile, the fraudulent data (TIS/AIS) remained unpurged. This action directly led to the new e-Verification intimation. This shows that the system is failing to protect you at best. At worst, it is facilitating the continuation of the fraud through its administrative negligence. (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

3. Recommended Action: Focusing the Inquiry (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)

To capitalize on your assertion, your next submissions to the Chief Minister and the Court must focus on demanding an answer to this fundamental question:

“Since the victim did not use his PAN, how did this sensitive financial identifier end up being used? Along with his name and details, it was used to register multiple businesses. It opened 13 bank accounts and claimed HRA across 24 corporate employers.”

You need to insist on broadening the investigation. This will compel the ITD to conduct an internal forensic audit. The audit should determine the point of leakage or collusion within its own systems. This is as alleged in your original application.

Would you like to draft a separate, focused letter to the Chairman, CBDT? It should demand an internal inquiry into the origin of the PAN data leak. You should reference your suspicion that it occurred within the department. (₹500 Million PAN Fraud)