Nitin Tanwar Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3) Delhi

The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that against the demand of the company namely Touche Digital Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Touche Digital’ ), the petitioner’s bank account has been seized, simply because he happens to be a Director of the said Company.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an assessee in his own capacity and distinct from the Company, which has a separate Permanent Account Number (PAN). He added that the petitioner has been filing his Income Tax Returns.

¶14

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the demand of the Company, the seizure of the petitioner’s bank account is illegal and contrary to the petitioner’s right.

¶15

Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:45:06

¶17

submitted that the Company-‘Touche Digital’ itself had given the account number 03631530002382 in its Income Tax Return and since it was petitioner company’s own assertion, this account has been seized against the outstanding demand of the Company.

¶18

Mr. Mann further submitted that the Company’s refund has also been credited in this account. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner clarified and submitted that the account number belonging to the petitioner was wrongly given, while furnishing Income Tax Return of the Company-Touche Digital however but at the same time asserted that no amount of refund has been credited in above-referred account number which belong to the petitioner.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that maybe the account number belonging to the petitioner has been given in the Income Tax Return filed by the Company due to inadvertence or otherwise. But since the fact that this number belongs to petitioner is not in dispute, the seizure of such account cannot be countenanced.

¶20

On perusal of the record, we find that the amount of refund of the Company has never been credited in this account. The error on the part of the Company in giving incorrect particulars of Bank appears to be bona-fide. 9. Such being the position, seizure of the petitioner’s account for ensuring recovery of the demand raised against the Company-Touche Digital cannot be justified. We are, therefore, persuaded to allow the present writ petition.

¶21

The petition is allowed, the seizure of petitioner’s bank account made vide communication dated 21.01.2026 is hereby set aside.

¶22

It shall be required of the petitioner to furnish before the AO, the bank

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:45:06

¶25

details of the Company duly verified from the Manager of the bank within seven days from today.

¶26

On furnishing the bank details of the Company, the Assessing Officer shall forthwith issue necessary communication to the bank giving effect to the instant order. In other words, he shall withdraw/ cancel the orders of the seizure of the petitioner’s bank account forthwith.

¶27

Pending applications are also disposed of.

¶28

DINESH MEHTA, J

¶29

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶30

MARCH 10, 2026/ ss

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/03/2026 at 13:45:06

Nitin Tanwar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3) Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Tanwar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3) Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Gaurav Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Nav Rashtra Party Vs Election Commission of India

Mohd. Suleman Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Braham Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

National Acreditation Board for Testing and Callibration Laboratories Vs Director General of Income Tax and Anr.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi -4 Vs Ms Gruner India Pvt. Ltd.

Rites Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax,Ltu,Delhi New Delhi and Anr.

Ram Prabhakar Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) and Ors.

Ravi Sharma, Advocate Vs Union of India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, through- Secretary & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-10 Vs Amit Sankhwal