Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

march 2026

Delhi High Court · 2026-03-13

DEEPAK TALWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE

Citation / case number
CRL.M.C.-1844/2021 2026:DHC:2202
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
DEEPAK TALWAR
Respondent
INCOME TAX OFFICE

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 11th November, 2025 Pronounced on: 13th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 1844/2021, CRL.M.A. 12724/2021 + CRL.M.C. 2148/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14493/2021 + CRL.M.C. 2150/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14496/2021 + CRL.M.C. 2151/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14498/2021 + CRL.M.C. 2152/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14500/2021 + CRL.M.C. 2254/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15082/2021 DEEPAK TALWAR S/O. LATE N.D. TALWAR R/O. 6/14, SHANTI NIKETAN, NEW DELHI - 110021 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri and Ms. Ariana Ahluwalia, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICE THROUGH STANDING COUNSEL MR. ZOHEB HUSSAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Tanishq Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1844/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 18 Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:17.03.2026 17:21:42 J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. The aforesaid six Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) have been filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Order dated 19.02.2021, whereby the learned ASJ in the Revision Petition, has upheld the Order of the learned ACMM dated 01.10.2019, whereby the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the Income Tax Office for filing additional documents, was allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that a Search and Seizure operation was carried out by the Income Tax Authorities, at the residence and business offices of the Petitioner on 22.06.2016, under Section 131 (1)(A) Income Tax Act. The statements of Petitioner were recorded under Section 132(4) Income Tax Act, though the statements were subsequent

DEEPAK TALWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE · Niyam