Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

One-Year Practice before Income Tax Authorities Mandatory for Registration as Income Tax Practitioner: Madras HC [Read Order]

While Section 515 states eligibility to act as an authorized representative, Rule 257 governs formal registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. The one-year practice requirement merely regulates registration without restricting representation rights.

One-Year Practice before Income Tax Authorities Mandatory for Registration as Income Tax Practitioner: Madras HC [Read Order]
X

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that one-year practice before the income tax authorities is mandatory for registration as Income Tax Practitioner (ITP). The court upheld the decision of the authorities to return an application which failed to fulfil this criteria. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy clarified that while a qualified person may act as an...


The Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that one-year practice before the income tax authorities is mandatory for registration as Income Tax Practitioner (ITP). The court upheld the decision of the authorities to return an application which failed to fulfil this criteria.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy clarified that while a qualified person may act as an authorised representative under Section 515 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, registration as an Income Tax Practitioner is governed by a separately requiring fulfillment of the one-year practice condition.

V. Ganesamoorthi filed a writ petition challenging a May 27, 2026, order that rejected his application for registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. The Income Tax Department returned his application because he failed to provide proof of practicing before the authorities for at least one year.

According to the petitioner, possessing the requisite educational qualifications under Section 515 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, and Rule 252 of the 2026 Rules already entitled him to act as an authorized representative. He contended that meeting this statutory criteria prohibited the Department from imposing an additional one-year practice condition for formal registration.

It was further submitted that Rule 257 should be harmoniously construed with Section 515 and could not be interpreted as adding a condition beyond what the parent statute envisaged.

The Income Tax Department distinguished between an authorized representative and a registered Income Tax Practitioner. Although the petitioner’s education allowed to represent clients, Rule 257 mandates one year of practice prior to registration.

Because earliest appearance was September 29, 2025, and he applied for the ITP registration on December 15, 2025, he failed to meet this mandatory one-year requirement, asserted the department.

Tax Professionals Are Switching to AI Don't be the last tax professional to learn what others are already using Grab yours now

The Court observed that Section 515 merely enables an assessee to be represented before the Income Tax Authorities or the Appellate Tribunal through an authorised representative belonging to one of the categories specified under the provision. A person possessing the prescribed educational qualification under Rule 252 falls within that category and is therefore entitled to appear before the authorities on behalf of taxpayers.

The Court distinguished the entitlement to practice from formal registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. It clarified that Rules 255 to 257 create an independent statutory mechanism for maintaining the practitioner register and issuing certificates.

Rule 257 mandates that to obtain this registration, an applicant must not only meet the qualifications prescribed under Section 515(3)(a), but also have practiced before the Income Tax Authorities for at least one year as of the application date, observed the bench.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Rule 257 contradicts the parent Act, clarifying they serve different purposes. While Section 515 states eligibility to act as an authorized representative, Rule 257 governs formal registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. The one-year practice requirement merely regulates registration without restricting representation rights.

The bench decided that “.. the petitioner has not challenged the validity of Rule 257. In the absence of any challenge to the vires of the Rule, and in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner had not completed one year of practice as on the date of his application, I find no illegality in the action of the respondents in returning the application.”

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Department's action and disposed of the writ petition. However, as that the petitioner would complete the requisite period of practice shortly, the Court permitted to submit a fresh application for registration on or after October 1, 2026.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

V.Ganesamoorthi vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax , 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 888 , W.P.(MD) No.15268 of 2026 , 15 June 2026 , V.Vinayagamoorthy , J.Parkehkumar
V.Ganesamoorthi vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 888Case Number :  W.P.(MD) No.15268 of 2026Date of Judgement :  15 June 2026Coram :  D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCounsel of Appellant :  V.VinayagamoorthyCounsel Of Respondent :  J.Parkehkumar
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019