V. Ganesamoorthi Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the return of an application for registration as an Income Tax Practitioner after the applicant failed to produce proof of having practised before the Income Tax Authorities for at least one year as on the date of the application.
The petitioner contended that he possessed the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 252 of the Income Tax Rules, 2026, framed under Section 515 of the Income Tax Act, 2025. He argued that Section 515(3)(a)(vi) recognises persons possessing the prescribed educational qualification as authorised representatives and that the authorities could not insist on an additional requirement of one year’s practice. According to the petitioner, Rule 257 should be read harmoniously with Section 515 and could not impose a condition beyond the parent statute.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner was already eligible to act as an authorised representative by virtue of possessing the prescribed qualification and had, in fact, appeared before the Income Tax Authorities on behalf of assessees. However, they argued that registration as an Income Tax Practitioner is governed by Rules 255 to 257 of the Income Tax Rules, 2026. Under Rule 257, registration can be granted only if the applicant satisfies the requirements of Section 515(3)(a) and has practised before the Income Tax Authorities for not less than one year as on the date of the application. Since the petitioner’s earliest recorded appearance was on 29.09.2025 and his application was filed on 15.12.2025, he had not completed the prescribed period of practice.
