Property Registrations Flagged Over Fictitious PAN

Nearly 25,000 property registrations over two years at Badshahpur tehsil in Gurugram reportedly carried the same fictitious PAN, according to The Times of India’s 9 October report on an Income Tax Department survey.

The finding raises questions about taxpayer identification and transaction reporting. It does not establish the legal position of every property mentioned.

Records remain under scrutiny

The newspaper said investigators compared the State’s property-registration records with Statements of Financial Transactions submitted to the tax department.

Subsequent PTI reporting, published by Daily Excelsior on 12 October, described continuing reconciliation of records. It said the investigation would determine whether discrepancies arose from record-keeping errors or deliberate misconduct.

That report also carried a senior administrative officer’s suggestion that a computer or portal glitch could explain the repeated PAN entry. This remains a proposed explanation, not an established finding.

The report said no evidence establishing an official’s involvement had emerged at that stage.

The headline does not settle responsibility

A repeated identifier is a serious discrepancy requiring explanation. Establishing who entered it, where it appeared and how it reached the tax-reporting system requires the underlying records.

The reporting reviewed does not provide a final departmental determination, a complete affected-property list or a transaction-by-transaction finding of tax evasion.

Reported transaction totals also differ in scope across accounts. They should not be combined into a single estimate of proven fraud or lost tax revenue.

What buyers can verify

The Income Tax Department provides a PAN-verification service that checks details against its database and displays PAN status.

That is one part of a property enquiry. A buyer still needs to establish the seller’s identity, authority to transact and the position of the specific property.

We examined another example of document-specific verification in this article -> Noida Sports City: Four Projects Get Conditional OCs.

That story concerns occupancy approvals, not PAN reporting. The relevant connection is that each document answers a particular question; one successful check cannot substitute for the others.

What to watch next

A meaningful update would explain the source of the repeated identifier, distinguish reporting errors from deliberate conduct and identify the process for correcting affected records.

Until then, the reported survey supports closer verification without establishing a blanket conclusion about every registration.

Sources

Click an article title to view the source.

• Noida Sports City: Four Projects Get Conditional OCs published on 13 October 2026 in Vantage Radar.
• 25,000 property registrations at Gurgaon tehsil office have one fictitious PAN: ‘ABCDEF1234’ published on 9 October 2026 in The Times of India, by Bagish Jha.
• Gurugram: Same PAN used in 25,000 property registrations, Rs 55,000-crore transactions under lens published on 12 October 2026 in Daily Excelsior, reporting by PTI.
• Verify your PAN published by the Income Tax Department; accessed on 13 October 2026. A reliable publication date is not displayed.

Reporting limitation: The survey records and a final departmental finding were not independently retrieved. The number of affected registrations remains attributed to reporting.

What should a registration system show buyers to confirm that their identity details were recorded correctly? Share your reasoning or experience in the attached forum discussion.