Kotecha v Revenue and Customs (IHT - PROCEDURE - appeal against a determination) [2025] UKFTT 330 (TC) (14 March 2025)

Kotecha v Revenue and Customs (IHT - PROCEDURE - appeal against a determination) [2025] UKFTT 330 (TC) (14 March 2025)

The applications for reinstatement and for permission to make that application out of time are allowed because, although the delay and breaches were serious, the proximate cause was an IT failure diverting correspondence to the agent's junk email folder, of which the agent was unaware until 2 July 2024. The appellant reasonably relied on a competent agent. The sanction of strike out would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the breach, and the balance of prejudice favours reinstatement.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 330
Parties
Appellant: Rohit Kotecha; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Appeal / Application for Reinstatement and for Permission to Make That Application Out of Time After Appeal Struck Out
Outcome
Applications allowed; appeal reinstated.
Legal Topics
Inheritance Tax, Business Property Relief, Tribunal Procedure, Reinstatement of Appeal, Case Management, Agent Failings
Tax Law Civil Procedure Inheritance Tax Business Property Relief Tribunal Procedure Reinstatement of Appeal Case Management Agent Failings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohit Kotecha

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Appeal / Application for Reinstatement and for Permission to Make That Application Out of Time After Appeal Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's applications for reinstatement of a struck out appeal and for permission to make that application out of time should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether failings by an agent (including IT issues and lack of diary management) constitute a good reason for procedural default
  3. 3 Whether the sanction of strike out was proportionate to the seriousness of the breach

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for reinstatement and for permission to make that application out of time are allowed because, although the delay and breaches were serious, the proximate cause was an IT failure diverting correspondence to the agent's junk email folder, of which the agent was unaware until 2 July 2024. The appellant reasonably relied on a competent agent. The sanction of strike out would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the breach, and the balance of prejudice favours reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; appeal reinstated.

Orders

  • Permission to make the reinstatement application out of time is granted.
  • The appeal is reinstated and may proceed.