Shoeb Choudhury v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 24 October 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1274 (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

This case concerns an application for permission to bring a 523‑day late appeal against a Director penalty decision upholding a £127,806.30 penalty. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage test for late permission, rejected the appellant’s reliance on accountants as a good reason for delay because there was no evidence they actively misled him and he failed to take minimal checks, and found the delay serious and significant. Balancing prejudice to HMRC, finality, and the absence of strong merits, the Tribunal refused permission to appeal out of time. The decision records the right to apply for permission to appeal this refusal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

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

A 523‑day delay in notifying an appeal is, absent compelling evidence, likely to be treated as serious and significant and will normally lead to refusal of permission to appeal out of time; moreover, failings by a litigant’s advisers are generally attributed to the litigant and do not ordinarily constitute a "good reason" for delay unless there is evidence the adviser actively misled the litigant.

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 noted that exceptions to the general rule about adviser failings may be appropriate where an appeal has strong, obvious merits or where there is evidence an adviser actively misled the litigant; it also observed that time limits and the principle of finality in tax proceedings weigh against permitting late appeals without good reason.