NITIN TANWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3) DELHI,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that while the company might have inadvertently provided the petitioner's bank account number in its Income Tax Return, the fact that this account belongs to the petitioner is undisputed. The Court found that no refund of the company had actually been credited to the petitioner's account, and the error in providing incorrect bank particulars by the company appeared bona fide. Therefore, seizing the petitioner's personal account for recovering the demand against Touche Digital Pvt. Ltd. was not justified. The seizure of the petitioner's bank account dated 21.01.2026 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to furnish the company's bank details to the Assessing Officer within seven days, upon which the AO was to forthwith cancel the seizure order. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Nitin Tanwar, a director of Touche Digital Pvt. Ltd. (the Company), filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his personal bank account. The seizure was made to recover outstanding demands against the Company. The petitioner argued that he is a separate assessee from the Company, which has its own PAN and files its own returns. The Revenue contended that the Company itself provided the petitioner's bank account number in its Income Tax Return and that the Company's refund was credited to this account. The petitioner clarified that the account number was wrongly provided by the Company but denied any refund being credited to his account.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's personal bank account is legally tenable for recovering the outstanding demand against Touche Digital Pvt. Ltd., a separate legal entity, when the petitioner is an individual assessee with his own PAN and filing obligations? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of separate legal entity and recovery of tax dues). Assessee's Contention: The seizure is illegal and contrary to the petitioner's rights as he is a distinct assessee from the company. The company's demand cannot be recovered from his personal assets. Revenue's Contention: The company itself provided the petitioner's bank account number in its Income Tax Return, and this account was used for crediting the company's refund, justifying the seizure against the company's outstanding demand.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2336/2026 CM APPL. 11283/2026 CM APPL. 11284/2026 NITIN TANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Gulati, Ms. Reena Gandhi and Mr. N.K. Gulati, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3) DELHI, .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anant Mann, JSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %
10.03.2026 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department 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
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. 5. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 10. The petition is allowed, the seizure of petitioner’s bank account made vide communication dated 21.01.2026 is hereby set aside. 11. It shall be required of the petitioner to furnish before the AO, the bank 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
details of the Company duly verified from the Manager of the bank within seven days from today. 12. 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. 13. Pending applications are also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J MARCH 10, 2026/ss 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026