Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding your ongoing legal battle with the Income Tax Department. This post will also discuss issues connected to Income Tax Information Evasion & CIC.

It is completely understandable why an information seeker feels this situation is both contradictory and unjust. For six years, the Income Tax Department considered these transactions as yours. They demanded taxes based on them. However, when you asked for the details to prove your innocence, they changed their stance. They began treating the same data as private third-party information.

1. Systematic Identity Theft and PAN Misuse

• Your PAN (GSWPS0850Q) was used in a massive criminal conspiracy involving over ₹500 Million(₹50 Crore) in fraudulent transactions.
• The department reported a GST turnover of ₹16,32,92,127 and other multi-million rupee business receipts against your identity for A.Y. 2023-24.
• The Directorate of Intelligence & Criminal Investigation (I&CI) officially confirmed your PAN was misused. Various persons utilised it to claim bogus HRA exemptions.

2. Contradictory Claims by the Department

• Despite internal confirmation of the fraud, the department rejected your appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003726) by labeling your claims “not factual .
• The department falsely claimed they had never received correspondence from police authorities.
• Evidence from the Mirzapur Police Case Diary proves that Notice No. 45 was served to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Prayagraj, on December 11, 2025.

3. Obstruction of Justice and Lack of Cooperation

• The police investigation under FIR No. 291/2023 is stalled because the Income Tax Department refuses to share essential bank and transaction details .
• The CPC Bangalore office has been aware of the police probe since at least November 2024. However, they continue to send automated compliance notices to you.
• The department is shielding the perpetrators. They cite Section 8(1)(j) (privacy). This is used to withhold the names and TAN numbers of the “Source Entities” (employers) involved in the fraud.

4. Procedural Failures and Misuse of RTI Act

• Local ward officers (Mirzapur, Allahabad, Kaushambi) violated Section 6(3). They provided “NIL” responses. The officers failed to transfer your request to the Investigation Wing.
• The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed your appeal, ignoring the overriding public interest in exposing a ₹500 Million fraud.

5. Escalation to the Central Information Commission (CIC)

• You have officially filed a Second Appeal with the CIC under Diary Number 619667 to break the administrative deadlock.
• The appeal seeks accountability for officers providing false information and the immediate disclosure of the fraudulent entities’ details.

Income Tax Information Evasion & CIC: The ₹500 Million Identity Theft Case

Digital finance brings convenience, but it also enables sophisticated identity theft. Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M.P. Singh) learned this when fraudsters hijacked his PAN (GSWPS0850Q). They misused his identity to report over ₹500 Million (₹50 Crore) in fake transactions. This case involves Income Tax Information Evasion. CIC’s fight for justice has now reached the Central Information Commission (CIC). He achieved this by highlighting the case of income tax information evasion. He also involved the CIC under Diary Number 619667.

---

1. The Shock: A Massive Financial Fraud

The ordeal began when the Income Tax Department issued notices for “Rent Received” totaling ₹1,12,16,962 for Assessment Year 2023-24. Later, an e-Campaign notice cited even higher figures, including a GST turnover of ₹16,32,92,127. Mr. Singh never received this income. In similar cases, evasion is often at the core of manipulated income tax information. These cases come under the radar of authorities like the CIC. Criminals hijacked his PAN to claim bogus House Rent Allowance (HRA) exemptions.

He acted immediately:

• Police Action: He registered FIR No. 291/2023 at PS Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur, in November 2023.
• Departmental Grievance: He filed a CPGRAM (DOPAT/E/2025/0010251) to identify the perpetrators.

---

2. The Departmental Paradox (Income Tax Information Evasion)

The department’s own records contain a massive contradiction. As an aside, this shows how Income Tax Information and evasion can lead to bureaucratic confusion. The subsequent review by the CIC also contributes to the chaos.

The Admission: On December 5, 2025, the Directorate of Intelligence & Criminal Investigation (I&CI) confirmed the fraud. Their report stated that various persons misused the assessee’s PAN. They closed the case against Mr. Singh and referred the matter to the Investigation Wing.

The Denial: When Mr. Singh asked the department to share bank details with the police, they refused. On January 13, 2026, they rejected his appeal (CBODT/E/A/25/0003726). They claimed his allegations were “not factual” because they had not received any police requisitions.

---

3. The Evidence: Notice No. 45

Mr. Singh used the RTI Act (Registration No. DGICI/R/E/26/00008) to challenge this denial^. The matter also connects to how income tax information evasion is investigated by the CIC. Police reports prove the department’s claim is false:

• notice No. 45: On December 11, 2025, the Mirzapur Police served an official notice to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Prayagraj.
• Bangalore Link: On November 17, 2024, the CPC Bangalore office had already discussed this PAN with the police.
• Frozen Accounts: Investigators identified 13 suspicious bank accounts linked to the victim’s PAN. This led to the freezing of his SBI and KCC accounts.

---

4. Legal Hurdles: Privacy or Shield? (Income Tax Information Evasion)

Mr. Singh sought the names and TAN numbers of the “Source Entities” reporting the bogus HRA^. Income tax information evasion cases like his, now overseen by the CIC, encounter complex legal challenges. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) in Lucknow dismissed this request on March 5, 2026.

The FAA used Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to protect “personal information. This creates a critical issue. Should transparency laws protect the identities of those involved in a ₹500 Million conspiracy? Mr. Singh argues that Section 8(2) prioritises the public interest over the privacy of fraudsters.

---

5. Procedural Obstacles

Local ward offices also failed to comply with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. This avoidance seems to hinder proper investigation of income tax information evasion, prompting escalation to the CIC. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, gave clear transfer instructions. Instead of transferring the request to the Investigation Wing, CPIOs in Mirzapur, Allahabad, and Kaushambi closed the requests as “NIL”. This “round-robin” tactic blocks the victim from reaching the actual record custodians.

---

6. Reaching the Central Information Commission

Mr. Singh moved the Central Information Commission (CIC) on March 31, 2026. For income tax information evasion matters, the CIC serves as a crucial authority of last resort. His appeal seeks three primary reliefs:

1. Accountability: An inquiry into CPIOs who gave false info about police notices.
2. Disclosure: Overruling privacy claims to reveal the “Source Entities”.
3. Internal Records: Access to note sheets to find who labeled the victim’s claims “not factual”.

---

Conclusion: A Test for Transparency

This case tests whether administrative machinery can protect victims of modern crime. When a department confirms fraud but fails to disclose the data needed for arrests, criminals thrive. As a result, the outcome at the CIC regarding income tax information evasion may set a vital precedent. Advocates now look to the CIC hearing for Diary Number 619667. They hope the Commission will finally provide the transparency required for justice.

Based on the documents provided, here are the application IDs. The email addresses, mobile/contact numbers, and web links related to the public authorities involved in your cases are also included.

1. RTI Application & Appeal IDs (Income Tax Information Evasion)

• Case 1 (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation):
  • RTI Registration Number: DGICI/R/E/26/00008.
  • First Appeal Registration Number: Addl.DIT(ICI)/Lko/A/26/0001.
  • Internal Grievance/Appeal ID: CBODT/E/A/25/0003726.
  • CIC Second Appeal Diary Number: 619667 (filed 31-03-2026).
• Case 2 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad):
  • RTI Registration Number: CCITL/R/T/26/00032.
  • Transfer Reference Number: DGTLK/R/E/26/00021.
  • Grievance Reference Numbers: CBODT/E/A/26/0000294, 246, and 245.

---

2. Public Authority Email Addresses (Income Tax Information Evasion)

• Directorate of I&CI, Lucknow:
  • lucknow.cit.admin.tps@incometax.gov.in.
  • lucknow.ito.hq.ici@incometax.gov.in.
  • lucknow.addldit.ici@incometax.gov.in (also cited as lucknow.addidit.ici).
  • lucknow.ddit.ici@incometax.gov.in.
• Pr. CCIT/PCIT Allahabad & Wards:
  • allahabad.ito2.1@incometax.gov.in (Ward 2-1).
  • kaushambi.ito2.5@incometax.gov.in (Ward 2-5).
• Central Authorities:
  • aditadmin.ici.delhi@incometaxindia.gov.in.
  • itohqadmn.ici.delhi@incometax.gov.in.
  • dgit.icinv@incometax.gov.in (Pr. DGIT Amitav).
  • ITD_Support@insight.gov.in (Insight Compliance Portal).

---

3. Mobile & Contact Numbers

• Lucknow I&CI Office: 0522-2466004 or 0522-4064572.
• PCIT Allahabad Fax: 0532-2408424.
• Central Registration/Pr. DGIT: 011-24363068 or 011-24363582.
• Police Authorities (Mirzapur):
  • so-katra.mi@up.gov.in (Inspector Ramesh Yadav).
  • Appellant’s Mobile (for record): +91-7379105911.

---

4. Web Links (Income Tax Information Evasion)

• RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.gov.in.
• Central Information Commission (CIC): www.cic.gov.in.
• PG Portal (Grievance Status): https://pgportal.gov.in.
• Income Tax Webmail: https://webmail.incometax.gov.in.

Would you like me to use these contact details to draft a formal non-compliance notice to the Pr. DGIT (Amitav) regarding the conflicting statements made by the Lucknow and Prayagraj offices?