https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/281

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO. E927 of 2025** **FIDELLIS MUEKE NGULLI...................................................................................APPELLANT** VS **COMMISSIONER OF DOMESTIC TAXES ..................................................... RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a sole proprietor registered in Kenya under the Business Names Act and tax resident in Kenya operating a duly registered law firm under the name Ngulli & Co. Advocates. 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws. Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act with respect to the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 and 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent conducted an audit on the Appellant on 4th October 2023; the Respondent issued the Appellant with a notice of intention to verify income and expenses as provided under Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act. 4. On 28th February and 13th March 2024; the Respondent issued the Appellant with a notice of assessment for VAT and Withholding Income Tax for the periods 2019 to 2022. 5. The Appellant lodged a late objection application on 12th June 2024 which was accepted on 21st June 2024. 6. The Respondent issued an Objection decision on 9th August 2024 confirming the assessments. 7. Dissatisfied with the Objection decision, the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal dated 26th August 2025. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appellant lodged a memorandum of appeal dated 26th August 2025 raising the following grounds: 1. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by ignoring expenses incurred by the Appellant and issued additional assessments for income tax obligation based on gross turnovers only, for periods 2019 to 2022. 2. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by ignoring input Vat and issued default assessments for the VAT obligation base on gross turnover only for the period 2016 to 2020. **THE APPELLANT’S CASE** 1. In support of the appeal, the Appellant relied on its statement of facts dated 27th August 2025 together with the documents attached thereto and submissions dated and filed on 28th May 2026. 2. The Appellant averred that the Respondent, on 13th March 2024 through the notice of assessment, issued additional assessments on iTax, with additional taxes for the Income tax obligation amounting to Kshs. 7,091,246, exclusive of interest and penalties, based on the revenue only. 3. The Appellant argued that the objection decision letter dated 9th August 2024 was inconsistent with the additional assessments added on the iTax system, for the income tax obligation. The letter indicated that the additional assessment for income tax obligation amounted to Kshs. 5,302,087, exclusive of interest and penalties, while the additional assessment added amounted to Kshs. 7,091,246, exclusive of interest and penalties, for the income tax obligation. (See annexed hereto and marked FN1) 4. The Appellant averred that the respondent failed to adopt the audited financial accounts, bank statements, trial balances and general ledgers provided for the years 2019 and 2020. The Respondent acknowledged the documents were availed on the objection decision letter dated 9th August 2024. 5. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent erred in law and fact by disregarding the Appellant's audited financial statements for the period 2019 and 2020 basing the assessments on incorrect estimates. 6. According to the Appellant the correct tax position for the years of income 2019 to 2020 was as per the audited financial statements that were availed to the Respondent in correspondences with the Appellant. 7. The Appellant asserted that the Respondent issued the additional assessments before the audit could be concluded, which was later confirmed through an objection decision. 8. He maintained that the Respondent erred in law and fact by failing to recognize expenses incurred in generating income, when computing income tax for the period 2019 to 2020. 9. The Appellant contended that the Respondent erred in fact and in law by ignoring documentary evidence adduced to enable determination of the actual incomes of the Appellant and instead relied on other bases which were not accurate. 10. According to the Appellant, the Respondent, on date 7th June 2021, 8th June 2021, 9th June 2021, 18th June 2021 and 21st June 2021, issued default assessments on VAT obligation for the period 2016 to 2020, which resulted to additional taxes amounting to Kshs. 18,536,230.14 exclusive of interests and penalties. 11. He argued that, additionally, the Respondent, on 13th March 2024 through the notice of assessment, issued additional Assessments on iTax, with additional taxes for the VAT obligation amounting to Kshs. 4,131,465, exclusive of interests and penalties, based on the revenue only. 12. The Appellant averred that the default assessments for VAT obligation for the period 2016 to 2020, were issued without notices, to the Appellant. 13. The Appellant further averred that the Respondent erred in law and fact by disregarding the provision of Section 17 of the VAT Act which permits a taxpayer to claim input VAT within 6 months thereof. 14. He contended that the Respondent issued default assessments and computed output VAT based on the revenue generated and failed to consider the input VAT for the period 2016 to 2020. As a registered taxpayer, the Appellant has a right to have VAT input deductions as provided for in Section 17 of the VAT Act. 15. The Appellant averred that the Respondent violated the Appellant's right to fair administrative action and laws of natural justice by issuing default assessments and additional assessments without affording the Appellant any reasonable opportunity to be heard on the assessments. 16. The Appellant asserted that the Respondent issued its decision dated 9th August 2024 confirming the assessments despite the Appellant providing all the evidence required and expressed his willingness to provide more information upon request. 17. The Appellant stated that the Respondent issued a demand notice dated 18th March 2025 for the tax arrears amounting to Kshs. 43,946,640 for both VAT and Income tax obligation inclusive of interest and penalties. **Appellant’s submissions.** 1. The Appellant filed written submissions dated and filed on 28th May 2026 wherein he submitted that the Respondent issued default VAT assessments for the period February 2016 to December 2020 without prior notices, relying on VAT withholding certificates, thereby resulting in additional taxes amounting to Kshs. 18,536,230.14, exclusive of interest and penalties. The Appellant only became aware of the alleged liability through a demand letter dated 18th March 2025. 2. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent failed to take into account the amendments to the withholding VAT rates from 6% to 2% as introduced under the Finance Act, 2019, for the months of December 2019, February 2020, and March 2020. The Respondent further failed to consider the distinction between the transaction dates and the payment dates by customers, as clearly reflected in the withholding VAT certificates indicating the gross amounts and applicable tax rates. Consequently, transactions undertaken under the previous tax regime were subjected to the current tax regime based solely on payment dates, thereby resulting in an overstatement of output VAT by Kshs. 7,398,856.05. 3. The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent erroneously issued default assessments based on alleged income from customers whose transactions never occurred. In particular, the default assessment for the month of December 2019 reflected income purportedly received from ICEA Lion General Insurance Company Limited amounting to Kshs. 31,866,207, which transaction was fictitious, inaccurate, and commercially unrealistic. The said assessment was therefore excessive, erroneous, and unsupported by any factual or documentary evidence. 4. He argued that the Respondent issued default VAT assessments by calculating output VAT solely on the basis of revenue generated while failing to take into account the applicable input VAT. That as a registered taxpayer, the Appellant is entitled to claim input VAT deductions pursuant to Section 17 of the VAT Act. 5. In response to the Respondents statement of facts, the Appellant submitted that relevant financial records, including audited financial statements, bank statements, trial balances, general ledgers, withholding tax certificates, invoices, and other supporting documents were availed during the assessment and objection stage. The Respondent failed to conduct a fair and comprehensive reconciliation of the documents supplied and instead selectively relied on perceived inconsistencies without demonstrating how the alleged discrepancies translated into additional taxable income. 6. He submitted that the Respondent's assessment was issued arbitrarily and contrary to Sections 24 and 31 of the Tax Procedures Act as it was not based on verified facts or supported computations. The Respondent disregarded the audited accounts and instead relied on assumptions and estimates unsupported by evidence. **Appellant’s prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed that the Tribunal: 2. Sets aside the default Assessments on VAT amounting to Kshs. 18,536,230.14. 3. Sets aside the additional Assessments on both VAT and income tax amounting to Kshs. 4,131,465 and Kshs. 8,614,502 respectively. 4. Vacates the objection decision dated 9th August 2024. 5. Awards costs of the appeal to the Appellant. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. In response to the appeal, the Respondent relied on its Statement of Facts dated 19th November 2025 and filed 21st November 2025 together with the documents attached thereto as well as its written submissions dated and filed on 29th May 2026. 2. The Respondent reiterated its position stated in the Objection decision communicated to the Appellant and refuted every allegation by the Appellant’s memorandum of appeal and statement of facts. 3. The Respondent averred that variances were noted in the Appellant’s returns, and it was noted that in the year 2019 and 2020, the gross revenue as per the audited accounts was inconsistent. 4. The Respondent stated that a scrutiny of the audited financial statements revealed that in the year 2020 the Appellant was in refundable position due to withholding credits*.* 5. The Respondent further stated that the review of the audited financial statements for the year 2019 indicated that the Appellant was in tax payable position. As per the financial statements, he was supposed to settle Income tax liability amounting to Kshs 330,291*.* 6. The Respondent proceeded to review bank statements provided for both years 2019 and 2020 which indicated bank credits amounting to Kshs 5,268,764.10, inconsistent with the income as per withholding credits for both years. 7. The Respondent averred that a review of general ledgers and trial balances for the years 2019 and 2020 revealed inconsistencies between expenses claimed in audited financial statements and primary documents therefore the expenses incurred in the generation of income were not supported*.* 8. It stated that the trial balances and general ledgers provided did not agree with the signed audited financial statements. 9. According to the Respondent, on 31st July 2024, the Appellant was requested the following documents in support of their expenses; 10. invoices, 11. receipts, 12. fee notes and contract documents 13. The Respondent relied on Section 112 of the Evidence Act which states that, *“In civil proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving that fact is upon him.”* 1. The Respondent stated that the Appellant failed to avail detailed supporting documentation and records to counter the assertions of the Respondent in the various engagements at assessment stage as well as objection stage contrary to Section 59 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act. 2. The Respondent averred that the Appellant did not provide any evidence to show or demonstrate that the assessment is erroneous or excessive despite being given several opportunities to support its position. 3. It stated that the Appellant at the Objection stage failed to avail the detailed support documentation to support its various objection grounds as per the requirements of Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act. 4. In the absence of supporting documents, the Respondent issued an assessment to the Appellant as provided for in Section 24 of the Tax Procedures Act. 5. The Respondent asserted that its competence to assess, demand and collect taxes established from the investigation from Section 24(2) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 which gives the Commissioner the power to assess a taxpayer’s tax liability using information available to him. 6. The Respondent relied on Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act which provides that the burden of proving that the tax assessment is wrong lies with the taxpayer and the Appellant herein failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the assessment was wrong. **Respondent’s submissions** 1. The Respondent filed written submissions dated on 26th august 2026 and filed on 29th August 2026 wherein it analyzed the following issue. 2. **Whether the Appellant’s objection was validly lodged.** 3. The Respondent referred the Tribunal to the provisions of Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, which provides for a taxpayer’s objection to a tax decision by the Respondent. 4. Specifically, the Respondent submitted that Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act, provides as follows: *“A notice of objection shall be treated as validly lodged by a taxpayer under subsection (2) if—* 1. *the notice of objection states precisely the grounds of objection, the amendments required to be made to correct the decision, and the reasons for the amendments;* 2. *in relation to an objection to an assessment, the taxpayer has paid the entire amount of tax due under the assessment that is not in dispute or has applied for an extension of time to pay the tax not in dispute under section 33(1); and* 3. *all the relevant documents relating to the objection have been submitted.”* 4. The Respondent relied upon Section 59 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 and submitted that the provision bestows on it the authority to require the production of documents from a taxpayer for the purposes of obtaining full information. 5. The Respondent submitted that there was correspondence between the two parties via email dated 31st July 2024, whereby the Respondent requested the Appellant to provide supporting documents with regard to their objection. 6. The Respondent therefore issued an Objection decision dated 9th August 2024, rejecting the Appellant’s objection and confirming the assessments. 7. It relied on the case of **Kotile General Contractors Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] eKLR** where the Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to comply with the provisions set out in Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act and hence there was no valid objection. 1. **Whether the Respondent’s assessments were legally justified.** 2. The Respondent submitted that the assessments were based on Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act which allows the Commissioner to make a decision based on best judgment and information available to the Respondent. 3. Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Respondent to make alterations or additions to original assessments from available information for a reporting period based on the available information and the Commissioner’s best judgement. 4. The Respondent submitted that it examined all the relevant information and records availed by the Appellant before arriving at the objection decision. That it is the Appellant who failed to provide the requisite documents to support their objection and has failed to tender evidence to show how the Respondent erred or how the Respondent’s assessments were erroneous or excessive. 5. The Respondent further relied on Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act which empowers the Respondent to seek any information relating to the ascertaining of the correct tax liability of an Appellant. 6. **Whether the Appellant discharged his burden of proof.** 7. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not discharged its burden of proof under Section 56 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. 8. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant did not provide the requisite documents to prove that the assessments made were excessive or erroneous. The appeal is therefore devoid of any merit and ought to be dismissed. 9. The Respondent relied on the following cases in its submissions: 10. **Digital Box Ltd Vs Commissioner of Investigation & Enforcement (2019) eKLR** 11. **Osho Drapers Limited Versus Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2022] eKLR,** 12. **Commissioner of Domestic Services Vs Galaxy Tools Limited [2021] eKLR,** 13. **Prima Rosa Flowers Limited Versus Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2019] eKLR.** **Respondent’s prayers** 1. The Respondent prayed that the Honourable Tribunal: 2. Upholds the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 9th August 2024 as proper and in conformity with the provisions of the Law. 3. Dismisses the Appeal with costs to the Respondent, as the same is devoid of any merit. **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal identified the following issue for determination: 2. **Whether there is a valid Appeal before the Tribunal** 3. **Whether the Respondent erred in confirming the Income tax assessments and the VAT additional assessments assessed upon the Appellant.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. The Tribunal proceeded to analyse the issue for determination as hereunder. 2. **Whether there is a valid appeal before the Tribunal** 3. The Respondent in its submissions raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant did not submit all documents relevant to the objection and, consequently, did not lodge a valid objection within the meaning of section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act. 4. Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA) prescribes the requirements of a valid notice of objection. It provides as follows: *"(3) A notice of objection shall be treated as validly lodged by a taxpayer under subsection (2) if—* *(a) the notice of objection states precisely the grounds of objection, the amendments required to be made to correct the decision, and the reasons for the amendments;* *(b) in relation to an objection to an assessment, the taxpayer has paid the entire amount of tax due under the assessment that is not in dispute or has applied for an extension of time to pay the tax not in dispute under section 33(1); and (c) all the relevant documents relating to the objection have been submitted.* 1. Section 51(4) of the TPA further places upon the Commissioner the obligation, where it determines that an objection has not been validly and provides as follows: *(4) Where the Commissioner has determined that a notice of objection lodged by a taxpayer has not been validly lodged, the Commissioner shall within a period of fourteen days notify the taxpayer in writing that the objection has not been validly lodged and request the taxpayer to submit the information specified in the notice within seven days after the date of the notice."* 1. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the Commissioner is furnished with adequate information to consider an objection fairly and efficiently. However, the question whether an objection is validly lodged is, in the first instance, one to be determined by the Commissioner under section 51(4) of the TPA. Once the Commissioner accepts the objection, considers it on its merits and renders a decision under section 51(8) of the TPA, that decision is an objection decision capable of appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to section 51(12) of the TPA. 2. The Court of Appeal recently considered the distinction between a validity decision under section 51(4) and an objection decision on the merits in **Geo Chem Middle East v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes *[2026] KECA 1531 (KLR)***. The Court held that a decision under section 51(4) is not a merits decision; it merely determines whether the objection meets the statutory requirements necessary to enable the Commissioner to make an informed substantive determination. Conversely, an objection decision is one made after consideration of the taxpayer’s grounds and supporting material, either allowing the objection in whole or in part, or disallowing it. 3. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent’s letter dated 9th August 2024, which forms the decision under appeal. The Letter shows that, for purposes of reviewing the objection, the Respondent requested the Appellant to provide: 4. Payment slip/Payment plan for taxes not in dispute, 5. Audited financial account for the periods 2019-2022, 6. Bank statements for the periods 2019 -2022, 7. Reconciliation of variances, 8. General ledger and Trial Balance, and 9. Sales ledgers and respective invoices 10. The Respondent acknowledged receiving audited accounts for the period 2019 and 2020, bank statements for the periods 2019 and 2020 and general ledgers and trial balances for the years 2019 and 2020. It later requested, by its letter dated 31st July 2024, further source documents including invoices, receipts, fee notes and contract documents in support of the Appellant’s expenses. The Respondent asserted that those further documents were not provided, thereby limiting the scope of its review. However, the Tribunal notes that, despite relying on the assertion in opposing the Appeal, the Respondent did not place before it a copy of the letter allegedly requesting the additional source documents. 11. The Tribunal however notes that it was after interacting with the initial documents provided for the review and after the Appellant’s failure to provide the additional documents allegedly requested by the Respondent, that the Respondent invoked the provision of section 112 of the evidence Act which states that, *“In civil proceedings, when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving that fact is upon him.”* 12. The Tribunal agrees that a taxpayer cannot merely assert that documents were submitted; it must place evidence before the Commissioner and, where necessary, before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the documents were submitted and received. Such evidence may include an acknowledgement of receipt, email correspondence forwarding the documents, or a stamped inventory of documents. In the absence of evidence of submission, the Respondent cannot be faulted for determining the objection on the basis of the information available to it. 13. The Tribunal is guided by section 56(1) of the TPA and section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, which place the burden upon the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect or that an assessment is excessive. In **Ushindi Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement, Kenya Revenue Authority*, Income Tax Appeal No. E001 of 2019***, the High Court affirmed that a taxpayer challenging an assessment must demonstrate, through cogent evidence, the manifest errors in that assessment. 14. In the present case, it is the Tribunal’s view that the Respondent did not issue a notice under section 51(4) declaring the objection invalid. Instead, it considered the documents that had been availed, requested further information, evaluated the objection on the material before it, and ultimately rejected the grounds of objection and confirmed the assessment. The Respondent’s decision was therefore not a determination that no valid objection existed; rather, it was an objection decision founded on the Appellant’s failure to provide sufficient primary evidence to substantiate its grounds of objection. 15. The Tribunal consequently finds and holds that the Respondent issued an objection decision within the meaning of section 51(8) of the TPA. That decision was appealable under section 51(12) of the TPA, and the Appeal is therefore validly before the Tribunal. Top of FormBottom of Form 16. **Whether the Respondent erred in confirming the Income tax assessments and the VAT additional assessments assessed upon the Appellant.** 17. The Respondent contended that the assessments were properly raised after the Appellant failed to provide sufficient and verifiable primary documents to support its declared income, expenses and input VAT claims. It maintained that the audited financial statements, bank statements, ledgers, trial balances and withholding tax certificates supplied by the Appellant contained material inconsistencies and were not reconciled to invoices, receipts, contracts, payment vouchers and other source documents. Consequently, the Respondent asserted that it was entitled under sections 29 and 31 of the Tax Procedures Act to assess the Appellant on the basis of the information available. 18. The Respondent further contended that the Appellant had failed to discharge its burden under section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act to prove that the assessments and the Objection Decision dated 9th August 2024 were incorrect or excessive. 19. On the other hand, the Appellant contended that the Respondent erred in confirming the Income tax and VAT assessments without properly considering the audited financial accounts, bank statements, trial balances, general ledgers and the financial and tax records it had provided. It asserted that the Respondent assessed tax on gross receipts and turnover while failing to allow legitimate business expenses incurred in generating the income, as well as deductible input VAT incurred in making taxable supplies. The Appellant maintained that it had supplied audited financial statements, bank statements, trial balances, general ledgers, invoices and withholding tax certificates, but the Respondent failed to reconcile or give due consideration to those documents. 20. The law provides that the Respondent’s decision enjoys legal presumption of correctness. In particular, Section 50 (1) (a) of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA) provides a rebuttable presumption that the Respondent’s decision is conclusive and correct. Section 50 (1) (a) of the TPA provides as follows: *“(1) Except in proceedings under this Part—* 1. *the production of a notice of an assessment or a document under the hand of the Commissioner shall be conclusive evidence of the making of the assessment and that the amount and particulars of the assessment are correct.’’* 2. Pursuant to Section 50 (1) (a) of the TPA, the Appellant has to rebut the presumption that the Respondent’s decision is correct. To rebut the presumption, the Appellant has to adduce documents which would aid in discharging the burden of proof. 3. Section 56 (1) of TPA places the burden of proof upon the taxpayer. It provides that: *“In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.’’* 1. To discharge the burden, the taxpayer has to adduce documents to support its Notice of Objection. The taxpayer has to keep records to enable determination of its tax liability. Section 23 (1) (b) of the TPA provides that, *‘‘a person shall—* *maintain any document required under a tax law so as to enable the person's tax liability to be readily ascertained.’’* 1. Section 54A of the Income Tax Act provides that: *“(1). A person carrying on a business shall keep records of all receipts and expenses, goods purchased and sold and accounts, books, deeds, contracts and vouchers which in the opinion of the Commissioner, are adequate for the purpose of computing tax.’’* 1. Section 17(2) and (3) of the VAT Act provides as follows regarding deduction of input tax: *“(2) If, at the time when a deduction for input tax would otherwise be allowable under subsection (1)—* *(a) the person does not hold the documentation referred to in subsection (3), and* *(b) the registered supplier has not declared the sales invoice in a return, the deduction for input tax shall not be allowed until the first tax period in which the person holds such documentation:* *Provided that the input tax shall be allowable for a deduction within six months after the end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred.* *(3) The documentation for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be—* *(a) an original tax invoice issued for the supply or a certified copy;* *(b) a customs entry duly certified by the proper officer and a receipt for the payment of tax;* *(c) a customs receipt and a certificate signed by the proper officer stating the amount of tax paid, in the case of goods purchased from a customs auction; and* *(d) a credit note in the case of input tax deducted under section 16(2);* *(e) a debit note in the case of input tax deducted under section 16(5);”* 1. When filing the objection, the taxpayer has a duty to supply the Respondent with supporting documents. Consequently, Section 51 (3) (c) of the TPA provides as follows: *“(3)A notice of objection shall be treated as validly lodged by a taxpayer under subsection (2) if—* *(c)all the relevant documents relating to the objection have been submitted.”* 1. The duty to adduce documentary evidence and to discharge the burden of proof does not terminate at the objection stage. Upon filing an Appeal to this Tribunal, the Appellant has to prove that the Respondent’s decision was incorrect. In this regard, Section 30 of the TAT Act provides that: “*In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of proving—* *(a)Where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or* *(b)In any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.’’* 1. The Tribunal perused through the Appellant’s filed supporting documents in support of this Appeal and noted that the Appellant provided the following documents: Objection Decision dated 9th August 2024, demand notice dated 18th March 2025 and the ruling dated 1st August 2025, granting the Appellant leave to file the appeal out of time. The Appellant filed none of the documents it claimed that the Respondent failed to consider. 2. Whereas the Appellant asserted that the Respondent failed to consider and examine the audited financial accounts, bank statements, trial balances, and general ledgers and the financial and tax records among other supporting documents, the Tribunal notes that none of the above records were filed with the Appeal. 3. As the Tribunal has pointed out above, the duty to adduce documentary evidence and to discharge the burden of proof does not terminate at objection stage and upon filing an appeal to this Tribunal, the Appellant has to prove before this Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision was incorrect. Consequently, the Appellant had a duty to file all documents that it presented to the Respondent for the Tribunal’s consideration. 4. In the case of **Singapore Motors Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Income Tax Appeal E039 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 2443 (KLR)**, the High Court held as follows: *“This Court has remained emphatic that under section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (TATA) and section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA), the burden of proving that an assessment is wrong or excessive remains upon the taxpayer*.” 1. Further, in **Tumaini Distributors Company (K) Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] eKLR** the High Court held that the taxpayer has a burden to prove that the tax decision is wrong. In **Sagna Holding Ltd vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 266 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 606 (KLR)** this Tribunal emphasized that the taxpayer has a duty to demonstrate that where an Appeal relates to an assessment that the assessment is excessive; or in any other case that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently. 2. The Tribunal notes that whereas the Appellant claimed that it provided all relevant documents and that the same were disregarded by the Respondent, it did not provide any evidence to show that it had indeed submitted the required documents to the Respondent, the Appellant has also not attached the said documents in support of its Appeal at the Tribunal. The Tribunal is therefore not able to authenticate the Appellant’s claim that it provided sufficient documents. 3. Consequently, the Appellant did not move this Tribunal to find that the Respondent erred in confirming the Income tax assessments and the VAT additional assessments assessed upon the Appellant. **FINAL DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal lacks merit and makes the following orders: - 1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. The objection decision dated 9th August 2024 be and is hereby upheld; and 3. Each party to bear its own cost. 2. It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.** ……………………………..…. ROBERT M. MUTUMA CHAIRMAN ……………………………… ……..….……..…………….. JIMMY M. MALLA. GLORIA A. OGAGA MEMBER MEMBER …………………………… DR. TIMOTHY B. VIKIRU **MEMBER**