Here are the key takeaways regarding the allegations of corruption & administrative failure in Income Tax as detailed in the blog post:

1. Allegations of Significant Financial Fraud (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• The core issue involves the “automated data feeding” of ₹6.6 Million in fraudulent rent into the applicant’s tax profile.
• Despite formal denials on the tax portal, the data persists. The applicant characterizes this as a direct threat to his financial liberty. He views it as a sign of systemic corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

2. Systematic Evasion of RTI Responsibility

• Multiple local Income Tax offices, including those in Mirzapur, Allahabad, Kaushambi, and Fatehpur, have issued “NIL” or “not available” reports.
• These offices failed to follow Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The Act mandates transferring an application to the correct custodian if the information is not held locally.
• The blog post frames this “round-robin” disposal as a tactical delay. It is a primary example of administrative failure in Income Tax.

3. Link to Criminal Investigations (FIR 0291/2023)(Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• The RTI seeks the identity of an officer who allegedly provided false remarks to the police regarding FIR 0291/2023.
• Internal compliance reports confirm the police have requested “source and destination bank data.” However, local offices claim such matters are “outside their scope.

4. Legal Justification under Section 24(1) (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• The applicant argues that the matter involves allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Therefore, the standard exemptions for certain tax intelligence organizations do not apply. This is under the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.

5. Procedural Breakthrough via Senior Oversight

• A consolidated representation was successfully delivered to the Lucknow Investigation Wing (I&CI) on March 8, 2026.
• This delivery establishes official accountability at a senior level. It forces the department to either disclose the file notings for grievances CBODT/E/A/26/0000294, 246, and 245. Alternatively, they must formally transfer the matter to DGIT (Systems).

Corruption and Administrative Failure in Income Tax: The RTI Merry-Go-Round

In a functional democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, serves as the ultimate tool for transparency. However, the case of Shri Yogi M.P. Singh against the Income Tax Department highlights a troubling pattern of jurisdictional evasion. When a citizen seeks accountability regarding financial fraud, the response should be clear. It should also be transparent in cases of human rights violations. It should not be a series of “NIL” reports. These reports signal deep-seated corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

---

The Core Conflict: Fraudulent Data and Financial Liberty

At the heart of this dispute is a staggering allegation of corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax. The allegation involves the “automated data feeding” of ₹6.6 Million in fraudulent rent into the applicant’s tax profile. Despite formal denials on the tax portal, this data persists. This situation poses an immediate threat to the applicant’s financial standing and legal liberty.

This is not merely a clerical error. It is a systemic crisis. The applicant argues that these hijacked credentials and fraudulent entries constitute a violation of human rights. They also represent a manifestation of unchecked corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

---

The RTI Journey: A Study in Bureaucratic Transfers

The RTI application, originally filed on 30.01.2026 (Registration No. CCITL/R/T/26/00032), has become a traveler across the Uttar Pradesh tax landscape.

1. The Initial Transfer (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

The application was filed with the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Lucknow, before being sent to the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Allahabad. The Pr. CIT’s office correctly identified that the information might reside with subordinate ranges. They transferred it under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

2. The Chain of “NIL” Responses

Following this, the application was decentralized to multiple local wards. However, instead of the information being consolidated, each office provided a variation of the same response: “Information not available”.

• ITO Ward-3(2), Mirzapur (10.02.2026): Stated the information sought was not available in their office.
• ITO Ward-2(1), Allahabad (16.02.2026): Directed that the information be treated as “NIL”.
• ITO Range-2(4), Fatehpur (19.02.2026): Issued a similar “NIL” order under Section 7(1).
• ITO Ward-2(5), Kaushambi (24.02.2026): Claimed no identifiable record could be traced based on the particulars provided.

---

Violation of Section 6(3): A Tool for Obstruction (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

The most significant legal issue in this case is the failure of the CPIOs to perform their statutory duty. Many view this as evidence of corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is explicit. If a Public Authority receives a request for information held by another authority, they must transfer the application. This application should go to the correct custodian.

The transfer orders from the Pr. CIT Allahabad specifically instructed the CPIOs. They were told to transfer the information to the concerned officer if it did not pertain to their jurisdiction. However, the CPIOs in Fatehpur, Kaushambi, and Allahabad did not do this. They simply closed the matter with a “NIL” report. This action effectively blocked the applicant’s access to justice.

---

Crucial Links: FIR 0291/2023 and the Investigation Wing

The applicant has repeatedly highlighted the existence of FIR 0291/2023 filed with the Mirzapur Police. The RTI seeks the officer’s name. This officer allegedly provided false remarks regarding police requisitions in this FIR. This situation is a clear instance of alleged corruption. It also highlights administrative failure in Income Tax.

Internal compliance reports from the ITO Ward-3(2) in Mirzapur confirm that the applicant has made a demand for disciplinary action. This action is against senior officials, including a Pr. DGIT. This demand stems from their provision of non-factual remarks to the police. Furthermore, the police have requested “source and destination bank data” to investigate the fraud. However, the local tax offices claim that this request is “outside their scope.

---

The First Appeal: Seeking Accountability

Faced with this wall of administrative silence, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh filed a First Appeal (CCITL/A/E/26/00008) on 22.02.2026. The appeal specifically challenges the improper disposal of the RTI, framing it as a symptom of corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax. The applicant argues that:

1. Closing is not Transferring: A “NIL” report is an illegal substitute for a Section 6(3) transfer.
2. Custodian Identification: The information regarding grievances CBODT/E/A/26/0000294, 246, and 245 is undeniably held within the department’s higher wings. This information is part of Investigation or Systems.
3. Corruption Proviso: Under Section 24(1), even exempt organizations must provide information. This applies if it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

---

Recent Breakthrough: Delivery to the Investigation Wing

In a recent turn of events, a consolidated representation was successfully delivered to the Lucknow Addl. DIT (I & CI). This is a critical win. The Investigation Wing deals with “Intelligence and Criminal Investigation.” Therefore, they are the logical custodians of the bank data and file notings related to the police FIR.

The delivery to this senior office shifts the burden. The Investigation Wing now has the official record of all the “NIL” responses from the lower wards. They are legally obligated to provide the information. Alternatively, they must transfer the request to the DGIT (Systems) in New Delhi. This is necessary to address the fraudulent data feeding issue.

---

Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle of Impunity

The case of Yogi M.P. Singh is a reminder that the RTI Act is only as strong as its enforcement. Junior-rank officers use “jurisdiction” as a shield to hide “NIL” information. By doing this, they perpetuate corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

The Core Demands Remain Simple: (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• Certified copies of file notings for the CBODT grievances.
• Identification of the officer providing false remarks in a criminal investigation.
• Accountability for the ₹6.6 Million fraudulent rent entry.

This case is moving into the hands of senior rank officers. It is also entering the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority. The focus must remain on Section 6(3) compliance. Transparency is not a courtesy; it is a statutory mandate to combat corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

Based on the uploaded documents and correspondence, here are the specific identification and contact details related to the RTI applications and the concerned authorities:

1. Application & Grievance Identifiers (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• RTI Registration Number (Original): DGTLK/R/E/26/00021.
• RTI Registration Number (Transferred): CCITL/R/T/26/00032.
• First Appeal Registration Number: CCITL/A/E/26/00008 (Filed on 22.02.2026).
• Relevant CPGRAM Grievance/Appeal IDs: * CBODT/E/A/26/0000294.
  • CBODT/E/A/26/0000246.
  • CBODT/E/A/26/0000245.
• Police Matter: FIR 0291/2023 (Mirzapur Police).

2. Email Addresses of Concerned Authorities (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

Authority / Office	Email Address
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Allahabad	allahabad.pcit@incometax.gov.in.
Addl. CIT, Range-1, Varanasi (FAA/CPIO)	varanasi.addlcit1@incometax.gov.in.
Addl. CIT, Range-1, Allahabad (FAA)	allahabad.addlcit1@incometax.gov.in.
ITO Ward-2(1), Allahabad	allahabad.ito2.1@incometax.gov.in.
ITO Ward-2(5), Kaushambi	kaushambi.ito2.5@incometax.gov.in.
ITO Ward-2(4), Fatehpur	fatehpur.ito2.4@incometax.gov.in.
ITO Ward-3(2), Mirzapur	mirzapur.ito3.2@incometax.gov.in.
Lucknow Addl. DIT (Investigation/I&CI)	lucknow.addldit.ici@incometax.gov.in.
Nodal Officer, Pr. CCIT Lucknow	lucknow.acit.hq.admin@incometax.gov.in (Note: Reported as Access Denied).

3. Mobile & Telephone Numbers

• Appellant (Yogi M.P. Singh): +91-7379105911.
• Nodal Officer (Lucknow) Phone: 0522-2466009.
• FAA (Allahabad) Phone: 0532-2408228.
• Pr. CIT (Allahabad) Fax: 0532-2408424.

Core Portals (Corruption & Administrative Failure)

• RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.gov.in/.
• Income Tax Department E-Filing Portal:https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/.
  • Note: This is the primary portal for monitoring automated data feeding and filing formal denials regarding fraudulent rent entries.