Below is an overview of the key takeaways regarding the allegations of corruption & administrative failure in Income Tax, as detailed in the blog post:

Key Takeaways

1. Allegations of Significant Financial Fraud exposing Corruption & Administrative Failure

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

• 2. Systematic Evasion of RTI Responsibility
• In this regard, multiple local Income Tax offices, including those in Mirzapur, Allahabad, Kaushambi, and Fatehpur, have issued “NIL” or “not available” reports.
• Specifically, these offices failed to follow Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which mandates transferring an application to the correct custodian if the information is not held locally.
• As a result, the blog post frames this “round-robin” disposal as a tactical delay and a primary example of administrative failure in Income Tax.

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

• Specifically, the RTI seeks the identity of an officer who allegedly provided false remarks to the police regarding FIR 0291/2023.
• In addition, 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) in Corruption & Administrative Failure

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

5. Procedural Breakthrough via Senior Oversight

• A consolidated representation was successfully delivered to the Lucknow Investigation Wing (I&CI) on March 8, 2026.
• Consequently, this delivery establishes official accountability at a senior level. As a result, it forces the department to either disclose the file notings for grievances CBODT/E/A/26/0000294, 246, and 245, or 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. Nevertheless, the case of Shri Yogi M.P. Singh against the Income Tax Department highlights a troubling pattern of jurisdictional evasion. Specifically, when a citizen seeks accountability regarding financial fraud or human rights violations, the response should be transparent rather than a series of “NIL” reports. Ultimately, 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 lies a staggering allegation of corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax. Namely, the allegation involves the “automated data feeding” of ₹6.6 Million in fraudulent rent into the applicant’s tax profile. Moreover, despite formal denials on the tax portal, this data persists, thereby posing an immediate threat to the applicant’s financial standing and legal liberty.

Clearly, this is not merely a clerical error; rather, it is a systemic crisis. Accordingly, the applicant argues that these hijacked credentials and fraudulent entries constitute a violation of human rights as well as a manifestation of unchecked corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

---

The RTI Journey: A Study in Bureaucratic Transfers

For context, 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)

Initially, 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. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT’s office correctly identified that the information might reside with subordinate ranges and transferred it under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

2. The Chain of “NIL” Responses

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

• ITO Ward-3(2), Mirzapur (10.02.2026): For instance, they stated the information sought was not available in their office.
• ITO Ward-2(1), Allahabad (16.02.2026): Similarly, they 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): Likewise, they claimed no identifiable record could be traced based on the particulars provided.

---

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

In this context, the most significant legal issue in this case is the failure of CPIOs to perform their statutory duty, which many view as evidence of corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax. Indeed, 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 it to the correct custodian.

For instance, transfer orders from Pr. CIT Allahabad specifically instructed CPIOs to transfer the request if it fell outside their jurisdiction. However, the CPIOs in Fatehpur, Kaushambi, and Allahabad failed to do so. Instead, they simply closed the matter with a “NIL” report, thereby blocking the applicant’s access to justice.

---

Crucial Links: FIR 0291/2023 and the Investigation Wing

Meanwhile, the applicant has repeatedly highlighted the existence of FIR 0291/2023 filed with the Mirzapur Police. Specifically, the RTI seeks the identity of the officer who allegedly provided false remarks regarding police requisitions in this FIR, illustrating another clear instance of alleged corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

In fact, internal compliance reports from ITO Ward-3(2) in Mirzapur confirm that the applicant demanded disciplinary action against senior officials for providing non-factual remarks. Furthermore, although police requested “source and destination bank data” to investigate the fraud, local tax offices claim this request lies 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: First, a “NIL” report is an illegal substitute for a Section 6(3) transfer.
2. Custodian Identification: Second, the information regarding grievances CBODT/E/A/26/0000294, 246, and 245 is undeniably held within the department’s higher wings. Ultimately, this information is part of Investigation or Systems.
3. Corruption Proviso: Third, under Section 24(1), even exempt organizations must provide information. Specifically, this applies if it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

---

Recent Breakthrough: Delivery to the Investigation Wing

In a recent development, a consolidated representation was successfully delivered to the Lucknow Addl. DIT (I & CI). This represents a critical win, as the Investigation Wing handles “Intelligence and Criminal Investigation.” As a result, they are the logical custodians of bank data and file notings related to the police FIR.

Moreover, this delivery shifts the burden, as the Investigation Wing now holds official records of lower ward responses. Consequently, they are legally obligated to provide the requested information or, alternatively, transfer the request to DGIT (Systems) in New Delhi to resolve the fraudulent data feeding issue.

---

Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle of Impunity

Ultimately, the case of Yogi M.P. Singh serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is only as effective as its enforcement. When junior officers cite jurisdiction as a shield, 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.
• Furthermore, identification of the officer providing false remarks in a criminal investigation is required.
• Lastly, accountability for the ₹6.6 Million fraudulent rent entry must be established.

As this case moves to senior officers and the First Appellate Authority, the focus must remain on Section 6(3) compliance. After all, transparency is not a courtesy; rather, it is a statutory mandate required to combat corruption and administrative failure in Income Tax.

In conclusion, based on the uploaded documents and correspondence, the following sections detail specific contact and identification details related to the RTI applications and 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.

Related Posts Corruption & Administrative Failure in Taxation

• RTI Act and Transparency: A Case Study from Tehsil Lalganj
• Addressing Income Tax Corruption in India
• Income Tax Fraud Complaint by Yogi M.P. Singh
• Income Tax Grievance: Exploring Corruption Allegations
• Reporting Tax Fraud: A Case Study