Here are the key takeaways from the blog post. The post discusses the identity theft, 500 Million INR fraud, and legal struggle of Yogi M.P. Singh:

1. Massive Financial Fraud

• Fraudsters misused the appellant’s PAN to conduct fraudulent transactions worth ₹500 million.
• The system flagged over ₹1.8 crore in “escaped income” for Assessment Years 2023-24 and 2024-25 based on bogus HRA claims.
• While the department admitted the income for A.Y. 2023-24 was NIL, they refused to stop future automated notices.

2. Systemic Jurisdictional Failures (500 Million INR Fraud)

• The State Government and Central Tax authorities engaged in a “jurisdictional ping-pong,” delaying the investigation.
• State authorities initially returned the grievance to the Central Government, ignoring their sovereign duty to investigate crimes within state borders.
• An active FIR (No. 291/2023) remains under investigation by the Mirzapur Police.

3. Deliberate Misinformation and Obstruction

• The CPIO in Allahabad falsely claimed in writing that the office received no police correspondence.
• This statement directly contradicts the Mirzapur Police report confirming the service of Notice No. 45 to that very office.
• The department shifted the RTI process from online to offline to make the proceedings more cumbersome for the victim.

4. Lack of Transparency (500 Million INR Fraud)

• The Income Tax Department utilized RTI Section 6(3) to pass the request through multiple cities to obscure accountability.
• Authorities used Section 8(1)(j) to hide the names of the “Source Entities” (employers). They also concealed the TAN numbers of those who reported the fraudulent data.

5. Demands for Accountability

• A First Appeal was filed on February 5, 2026. It aims to challenge the misleading facts. It also demands the disclosure of the entities misusing the PAN.
• The appeal seeks an inquiry into the CPIO’s false statements. It also requests a direct liaison between the CBDT and the DGP of Uttar Pradesh.

500 Million INR Fraud: When Tax Systems Fail Citizens

A vigilant citizen in Mirzapur discovered a massive identity theft. Fraudsters misused the PAN of Yogi M.P. Singh for ₹500 million in transactions, which is now recognised as a 500 Million INR Fraud. Third parties claimed bogus House Rent Allowance (HRA) payments against his name. This case exposes a systemic “jurisdictional ping-pong” between the Police and Income Tax Department.

---

Automated Fraud Meets Manual Inaction (500 Million INR Fraud)

The Income Tax Department flagged Mr. Singh for “escaped income. The system identified over ₹1.8 crore for Assessment Years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Employers reported rent payments to his PAN for properties he never owned. These “Source Entities” provided false data to the tax portal. Notably, this scenario is a clear example of 500 Million INR Fraud affecting innocent citizens.

The department admitted the income for A.Y. 2023-24 was NIL. However, they refuse to stop automated notices for subsequent years. They also refuse to disclose the fraudsters’ identities to the victim. This leaves the citizen in a state of constant financial anxiety over the ongoing 500 Million INR Fraud.

---

Jurisdictional Hurdles and False Statements(500 Million INR Fraud)

Lack of coordination between state and central authorities obstructs justice. The Uttar Pradesh government tried to close the grievance prematurely. They ignored that “Police” and “Public Order” are state subjects. Mirzapur Police FIR No. 291/2023 remains active at PS Kotwali Katra, relating directly to the 500 Million INR Fraud case.

The Police served Notice No. 45 to the Income Tax office. They sought details of the fraudulent accounts and claimants. Shockingly, the CPIO in Allahabad falsely claimed they received no police correspondence. This misleading statement stalls the criminal investigation centred on the large 500 Million INR Fraud.

---

RTI Obstruction and Hidden Data

Mr. Singh used the RTI Act to find the truth. The department transferred his request through multiple offices to delay him. They used Section 6(3) to pass the buck between three different cities. This tactic has compounded difficulties for people targeted by crimes involving 500 Million INR Fraud.

The department hides behind Section 8(1)(j) to protect “Source Entities. They refuse to provide names or TAN numbers of these employers. This action shields corporations involved in criminal conspiracy. It denies the victim his right to clear his reputation. This is significant given the scale of a 500 Million INR Fraud scheme.

---

The Failure of the State Executive (500 Million INR Fraud)

The State cannot treat a criminal investigation as a “postal matter”. The current “Case Closed” status on the grievance portal is misleading. It suggests the matter is resolved while the fraud continues. The state must facilitate coordination between the CBDT and local police. This coordination is crucial to address issues such as the 500 Million INR Fraud.

The Constitution mandates that the state protect its citizens from crime. By returning the matter to the Centre, the state abdicates this duty. This inaction directly enables what Mr. Singh calls “financial terrorism” and it also perpetuates risks like those introduced by a 500 Million INR Fraud.

---

Demanding Accountability and Transparency (500 Million INR Fraud)

On February 5, 2026, Mr. Singh filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1). He demands immediate disclosure of the entities misusing his PAN. He also seeks an inquiry into the CPIO’s false statements. The department must be held accountable for its conflicting reports about the 500 Million INR Fraud.

The CBDT must liaise with the DGP of Uttar Pradesh immediately. They must stop the issuance of fresh fraudulent tax demands. The law should protect the victim, not the unidentified fraudster responsible for the £500 Million INR Fraud.

---

Conclusion

This case reveals a flaw in India’s digital tax infrastructure. A PAN is easy to misuse but hard to clear. Authorities must stop providing misleading facts to victims of fraud. Justice delayed by jurisdictional excuses is justice denied, and true justice for 500 Million INR Fraud victims remains elusive.

Here are the specific identification and contact details for the authorities involved in your case. These details are derived from the provided documents. They are also found in official correspondence.

1. Application and Case Identifiers

• RTI Registration Number: DGICI/R/E/26/00008 (Filed on 14/01/2026).
• Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0147565 (State Portal).
• Previous Grievance Reference: GOVUP/E/2025/0140998.
• Income Tax Appeal Number: CBODT/E/A/25/0003726.
• CPGRAMS Reference: DOPAT/E/2025/0010251.
• Police FIR Number: 291/2023 (PS Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur).
• Income Tax e-Verification DIN: INSIGHT/CMP/02/2025-26/81250007693350001.

---

2. Official Email Addresses

• First Appellate Authority / Joint Director (I&CI), Lucknow: lucknow.addldit.ici@incometax.gov.in.
• CPIO / Income Tax Officer (HQ), Lucknow: lucknow.ito.hq.ici@incometax.gov.in.
• Deputy Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Lucknow: lucknow.ddit.ici@incometax.gov.in.
• Joint Secretary, Govt of UP: arvind.12574[at]gov[dot]in.
• Central RTI Administration (Delhi): itohqadmn.ici.delhi@incometax.gov.in.

---

3. Mobile and Contact Numbers

• Chief Minister Secretariat (UP): 0522-2226350.
• Income Tax Office (I&CI), Lucknow: 0522-4064572.
• Complainant/Appellant Primary Number: 7379105911.

---

4. Web Link and Portal Details

• Central RTI Online Portal: rtionline.gov.in (Used for filing appeals and tracking DGICI/R/E/26/00008).
• UP Jan Sunwai (Grievance) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in (Used for tracking GOVUP/E/2025/0147565).
• Income Tax e-Filing Portal: eportal.incometax.gov.in (Used for responding to e-Verification notices and checking AIS/26AS).
• Internal Income Tax Webmail: webmail.incometax.gov.in.

5. Concerned Public Authorities (Addresses) (500 Million INR Fraud)

• Directorate of Income Tax (I&CI), Lucknow: NADT Regional Campus, “PRAGYA”, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010.
• Income Tax Officer (I&CI), Allahabad: 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 38 M.G. Marg, Allahabad (U.P.).
• Chief Minister Secretariat, UP: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow.

Would you like me to draft a table summarizing which specific Application ID corresponds to which specific legal department?