![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Ahya v Revenue and Customs (LATE APPEAL - whether permission should be given - balancing all of the circumstances - permission refused) [2025] UKFTT 1232 (TC) (16 October 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2025/TC09622.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 1232 (TC) |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Appeal reference: TC/2025/00076 |
TAX CHAMBER
Judgment Date: 16 October 2025 |
B e f o r e :
TRIBUNAL MEMBER PATRICIA GORDON
____________________
| SANJAY AHYA |
Appellant |
|
| - and - |
||
| THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS |
Respondents |
____________________
For the Appellant: Mr Arenstein, WHL Taxation Ltd
For the Respondents: Mr Campbell, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs' Solicitor's Office
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LATE APPEAL – whether permission should be given - balancing all of the circumstances – permission refused
Introduction
Background
Discussion
Establish the length of the delay
Reasons for the delay
(1) Mr Ahya stated in his grounds of appeal that it was not appreciated that appeals should be lodged within 30 days even if full details of income and expenses were not available until after that date. In support of this, Mr Ahya's agent referred to HMRC manual ARTG2170, which states that grounds of appeal may not be valid if they are too vague or specifically excluded by law. As it was contended that there was no explanation as to how the assessment figures had been arrived at, it was not possible to check the calculations.
(2) In the hearing it was conceded that Mr Ahya did not realise that he had to appeal, and believed that it was sufficient to file tax returns to show the true tax position and that, on filing returns, HMRC would cancel the assessments and penalties. He had not been able to file all of his returns online and so had sent the details of older returns in his letter of 8 March 2024. Mr Ahya had subsequently been advised that it was not possible to file tax returns online when they were out of time.
(3) In the hearing it was contended that, as Mr Ahya could not access his online account and his employment income details, it was not immediately clear that there were grounds for appeal. There were no submissions as to how this was consistent with the contention that Mr Ahya did not realise that he had to appeal.
(4) Mr Ahya also contended that he was awaiting information from HMRC under a Subject Access Request before submitting the appeal. In his grounds of appeal, he stated that attempts were made to obtain information about his employment history, income and tax position "before resorting to a Subject Access Request" in January 2024. This information was stated to be necessary to provide accurate figures to HMRC. The grounds of appeal further state that a response to the SAR was received in early March 2024, after which the letter dated 8 March 2024 was sent. This was repeated in Mr Ahya's letter to HMRC of 31 March 2024. It was contended in the Notice of Appeal that the delay in HMRC providing this response was the reason for the delay in appealing. In the hearing, Mr Ahya's representative stated that no response was received to the Subject Access Request made in January 2024, which had been made by Mr Ahya's accountant. It was suggested (without evidence) that the Subject Access Request might not have been properly made and failed to go through.
(5) Mr Ahya stated in his letter to HMRC of 8 March 2024 (repeated in his letter of 31 August 2024) that he had initially been unable to access his HMRC online account due to identity fraud, although he had gained access before writing his letter of 8 August 2024. In his letter of 31 August 2024, he included copies of emails which he had sent to a bank and the financial ombudsman regarding a loan which had been taken out in his name.
Evaluating all the circumstances of the case
Whether there is a good reason for the delay
Merits of the substantive appeal
Prejudice to the parties
Conclusion
Right to apply for permission to appeal