Kunal Ajwani v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 15 January 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 126 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

The case concerns whether the appellant's withdrawal of a 2021 Tribunal appeal operated under s54 TMA to treat HMRC's 2021 assessments as determined against him, and whether he could bring fresh appeals in 2023 challenging the same assessments and the late payment interest. The Tribunal held the 2021 withdrawal, unrepudiated within the statutory period, meant the assessments were treated as determined against the appellant, there was no right of appeal to the Tribunal against the late payment interest in the pleaded circumstances, and the 2023 appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and/or no reasonable prospect of success as an abuse/res judicata.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The judgment indicates that where an appellant withdraws a Tribunal appeal and does not seek reinstatement within the statutory (cooling-off) period, s54(1) and s54(4) TMA operate to treat the assessments as determined against the appellant; consequently a later appeal challenging the same assessments may be struck out for lack of jurisdiction or as having no reasonable prospect of success because the matter has been treated as finally determined.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal observed that procedural rules allowing reinstatement (Rule 17) do not alter the statutory consequences of withdrawal under s54 TMA and cannot be used to circumvent those statutory effects; the decision also relied on prior authorities addressing the interplay between withdrawal, s54 and Tribunal procedure, but no further binding expansions beyond those applications were identified.