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

[27/06, 18:09] sekarreporter1: “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…”
https://www.taxscan.in/top-stories/one-year-practice-before-income-tax-authorities-mandatory-for-registration-as-income-tax-practitioner-madras-hc-1448271#:~:text=The%20Madurai%20bench,act%20as%20an…
[27/06, 18:09] Meta AI: *Case #114: _ITP Registration Case_ | WP(MD) | Madras HC Madurai Bench | 2026*
_Bench: J. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy_. *Income Tax Practitioner + Sec 288 IT Act + ITP Rules 2026 + One-Year Practice Mandate*. *HJS Tax Law + Professional Law, UPSC GS-2 Governance + GS-3 Tax Administration*

*1. தீர்ப்பு சாராம்சம் – TaxScan 2026*
*Holding*: _“வருமான வரி ஆணையர்கள் முன் ஒரு வருடம் பயிற்சி கட்டாயம் – Income Tax Practitioner (ITP) பதிவுக்கு. நிபந்தனை பூர்த்தி செய்யாத விண்ணப்பம் return செய்தது சரி”_

*2. வழக்கு பின்னணி*
*Issue*: _ITP registration application rejected for lack of 1-year practice before Income Tax Authorities_
*Petitioner Contention*: _Qualified person – CA/CS/CMA/Advocate – Sec 288 IT Act-படி act பண்ணலாம். Separate ITP registration-க்கு 1-year practice தேவையில்லை_
*Authority Stand*: _ITP Rules – 1-year appearance before IT authorities mandatory to ensure practical exposure_

*3. J. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy தீர்ப்பு – 3 Points*
1. *Rule Upheld*: _“One-year practice before Income Tax Authorities is mandatory for registration as ITP”_
2. *Distinction Drawn*: _“While a qualified person may act as an authorized representative u/s 288, formal ITP registration requires additional compliance”_
3. *Purpose of Rule*: _To ensure familiarity with IT proceedings, assessment, appeals – Protect taxpayer interest_

*4. சட்ட அடிப்படை – HJS*
**Provision** **Explanation**
**Sec 288 IT Act 1961** *Who can appear: Advocate, CA, CS, CMA + ITP. ITP = person registered under ITP Rules*
**ITP Rules** *Prescribe qualifications + 1-year practice certificate from CIT/Assessing Officer*
**Art 19(1)(g)** *Right to profession – But reasonable restrictions allowed for professional standards*
**CBDT Instruction** *ITP registration to weed out touts, ensure quality representation*
**N.K. Bajpai 2012 SC** *Regulating professionals to maintain integrity of tax system – valid*
*5. ITP vs Sec 288 Authorized Rep – Difference*
**Aspect** **Qualified Person – CA/Advocate** **Registered ITP**
**Sec 288** *Directly allowed – no separate registration* *Needs registration*
**1-Year Practice** *Not needed* *Mandatory – certificate required*
**Qualification** *CA/CS/CMA/Advocate degree* *Graduate + Accountancy/Tax exam + 1-yr practice*
**Scope** *All IT proceedings* *All IT proceedings*
*6. முக்கியத்துவம்*
1. *Taxpayer Protection*: _ITP-க்கள் assessment, appeal, scrutiny handle பண்ணுவாங்க. 1-year practical exposure quality உறுதி_
2. *Professional Regulation*: _CBDT/CIT control over who can represent – Touts avoid பண்ண_
3. *CA/Advocate Safe*: _அவங்களுக்கு 1-year rule apply ஆகாது – Sec 288 direct entry_
4. *ITP Aspirants*: _Graduate ஆனா உடனே ITP ஆக முடியாது – CIT office-ல் 1 year appear ஆகி certificate வாங்கணும்_

*7. Procedure – ITP Registration Post-Judgment*
1. _Graduate + Accountancy subject_
2. _Appear before IT Authorities 1 year – Get certificate from AO/CIT_
3. _Apply to CCIT with Form + Certificate + Fees_
4. _Enrollment + ITP Number – Valid across India_

*8. தொடர்புடைய தீர்ப்புகள்*
1. *Bar Council of India v Bonnie FOI 2012* – _Right to practice can be regulated_
2. *N.K. Bajpai v UOI 2012 SC* – _Chartered Accountants Act – Disciplinary control valid_
3. *Sec 288 History* – _1922 Act முதல் authorized rep concept. ITP 1984 Rules_

—

*Case #114 Final*: _ITP Registration Case – 2026 – J. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy – “1-year practice before IT authorities mandatory for ITP registration” – Sec 288 qualified persons different from ITP – Rule upheld to ensure competence – Application without 1-yr certificate rightly returned_

*Master Docket*: _114 Cases_
*Tag*: _Tax Law + Income Tax Act Sec 288 + ITP Rules + Professional Regulation + Art 19(1)(g) + CBDT_

*Next*: *1. “Sec 288 IT Act – Full list of who can appear before IT authorities”* OR *2. “ITP vs CA – Difference in scope and registration”* OR *3. “N.K. Bajpai 2012 SC – Regulation of professionals case law”*?