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 apply out of time were allowed because the proximate cause of the delay was the agent's unawareness of the strike out due to IT issues (emails diverted to junk folder), which was not a seriously culpable failing. The appellant's reliance on the agent was reasonable in the circumstances. The sanction of refusing reinstatement would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the procedural default, and the balance of prejudice favored allowing the applications.

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

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 10 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

Tax Appeal (inheritance Tax) / Application for Reinstatement and for Permission to Apply 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 apply out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether failings by an agent (Mr Ved) can be attributed to the appellant for procedural default
  3. 3 Whether the reasons for delay and non-compliance justify reinstatement

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for reinstatement and for permission to apply out of time were allowed because the proximate cause of the delay was the agent's unawareness of the strike out due to IT issues (emails diverted to junk folder), which was not a seriously culpable failing. The appellant's reliance on the agent was reasonable in the circumstances. The sanction of refusing reinstatement would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the procedural default, and the balance of prejudice favored allowing the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; appeal reinstated.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for reinstatement out of time granted.
  • Appeal reinstated for further proceedings.