https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/296

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: TATC/E1123/2025 LATASHA PRINTERS LIMITED VS KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY JUDGMENT # BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a private limited company with operations in Kenya. 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. On 17th and 18th September 2019, the Respondent vide Assessment Orders required the Appellant to make good additional corporation income taxes amounting to Ksh 14,042,694.58 in relation to years 2015 and 2016. 4. Vide iTax, the Appellant objected against the assessments on 23rd June 2020. 5. Dissatisfied with the Respondent’s decision, the Appellant lodged its Notice of Appeal dated 1st October 2025 was filed on 7th October 2025. # THE APPEAL 1. The Appellant’s case was founded upon its Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st October 2025 and filed on 7th October 2025 wherein the Appellant raised a single ground as follows; That the Respondent erred in law and fact by not allowing the taxpayer to deduct allowable expenses for the year 2015 and 2016. # THE APPELLANT’S CASE 1. The Appellant’s case was anchored upon its Statement of Facts dated 1 st October 2025 and filed on 7th October 2025 together with documents attached thereto. 2. According to the Appellant, the Respondent on 17 th September 2019 raised additional assessments totalling Ksh 14,042,694.58 in relation to Appellant’s income for the years 2015 and 2016 against which the Appellant objected. 3. As per the Appellant, the Respondent never communicated in regards to the validity of Appellant’s objection as required by Section 50(3)(4) of the TPA until 23rd June 2020 when the Respondent acknowledged the objection. 4. That pursuant to Section 52 of the TPA, the Appellant lodged its Notice of intention to Appeal vide iTax on 15th April 2024. # The Appellant’s Prayers 1. The Appellant prayed that the Tribunal sets aside the Respondent’s tax decision to assess value added tax of Ksh 14,042,694.58 and accordingly annul the tax decision. # THE RESPONDENT’S CASE 1. The Respondent replied to the Appeal through its: 1. Statement of Facts dated and filed on 8th December 2025; and 2. Written submissions dated 29th April 2026 and filed on 16th June 2026 2. According to the Respondent, upon issuing the Appellant with additional income tax assessments for the years 2015 and 2016 on 17th and 18th September 2019, the Appellant lodged a late objection on 23rd June 2020 but without supporting documents and reasons for the late objection leading to a rejection of the late objection. 3. That the dispute in this Appeal relates to late objection rejection issued by the Respondent. 4. It was the Respondent’s case that it fully rejected the Appellant’s late objection due to failure by the Appellant to provide supportive documents and reasons for its late objection. 5. According to the Respondent, the Appeal herein is fatally defective for having been filed contrary to Section 13 of the TAT Act. Additionally, that the Appellant failed to object to the assessments of 17th and 18th September 2019 within 30 days as provided for under Section 51(2) of the TPA and that despite lodging a late objection, the Appellant never gave adduced reasons or documentation in support resulting in Respondent’s late rejection. 6. That the Respondent extended every opportunity for the Appellant to present its case and support its objection but the Appellant failed to comply with provisions of Section 51(3) of the TPA. That as a result, the Respondent issued assessments pursuant to Section 24 of the TPA due to Appellant’s failure to discharge its burden as enshrined under Section 56(1) of the TPA. 7. The Respondent in its written submissions identified the following issues for determination; 8. *Whether the Appeal before the Tribunal is valid?* 9. *Whether this Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this matter?* 10. *Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact by not allowing the* *taxpayer to deduct allowable expenses for the year 2015 and 2016?* 1. *Whether the Appellant has discharged its burden of proof?* 2. According to the Respondent, the Appeal herein is is fatally defective and in total contravention of Section 51(12) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 13(2) and (3) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (TAT Act) as the Appellant failed to attach a copy of the objection decision, object within the statutory thirty (30) days time frame and provide reasons for the late objection. Additionally, that the Appellant failed to seek leave of the Tribunal before filing the instant Appeal as couched under Section 13(3) and (4) of the TAT Act. 3. The Respondent supported its position citing the holding in the following case law; # Salsa Global Investment Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2023) eKLR 1. **James Mangeli Musoo v Ezeetec Limited [2014] eKLR.** 2. It was the Respondent’s case that failure to attach a copy of the objection decision rendered was fatally defective could not be cured in law as it constitutes the substratum that the Appeal herein seeks to challenge. The import of which is that the Appellant failed to satisfy to the Tribunal that there is an appealable decision before it as provided for under Section 2 of the TPA. A position the Respondent buttressed by relying on the holding in **Miguna Miguna v Lufthansa Group operating as Lufthansa German Airlines & 6 others; Kenya Nation Commission on Human Rights & another (Interested Parties) [2021] eKLR.** 1. It was the Respondent’s case that failure by the Appellant to seek leave to institute its Memorandum of Appeal means that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute herein. This is because jurisdiction is the very cornerstone of the Tribunal’s power to determine a matter, and without which, all its actions remain null and *void ab initio.* 2. That though the Appellant has a right to Appeal, the same should be exercised in view of statutory structures governing the exercise of that right, and without jurisdiction, the Tribunal should proceed to strike out the Appeal as guided by the landmark case of **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil** **(Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR** noting that the Tribunal also held the same in the case # of Salsa Global Investment Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2023) eKLR. 1. According to the Respondent, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to dispense with the matter as the Appeal was lodged out of time and without obtaining the leave. 2. As per the Respondent, the fundamental principle in determining the deductibility of any expenditure for tax purposes is as couched under Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act (ITA). 3. That for expenses to be allowable a taxpayer must prove two vital conditions, firstly that the expenditure was incurred in such year of income and secondly that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred by him in the production of income. That this was a position affirmed by the Tribunal in the case of **Edge** # Worth Properties v Commissioner of Legal Services and Coordination (TAT No E993 of 2024) . 1. That the task therein for a taxpayer is to demonstrate a nexus between the expenses being claimed and the income generating activity and therein lay the trite law in regards to burden of proof which squarely lies with the Appellant to show that a tax decision is erroneous or excessive as couched under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act. 2. That this can only be done by producing sufficient, relevant evidence to substantiate their claim both at the objection stage and appeal stage which was not the case herein. 3. That in absence of such documentation it was not possible to conclusively verify whether the claimed expenses were actually incurred or whether they related to the generation of taxable income. Thus, disallowance of the interest expenses was lawful, reasonable and justified. 4. In support of this position, the Respondent cited the Tribunal holding in the case of **Ushindi Exporters Limited vs Commissioner of Investigation And Enforcement (TAT NO 7 of 2015)** and the Court of Appeal’s decision in # Mbuthia Macharia V Annah Mutua Ndwiga & Another [2017]eKLR. 1. The Respondent asserted that the Appeal herein is devoid of any merit and ought to be dismissed as the Appellant, even before the Tribunal, has not adduced any supporting documents as required by Section 56(1) of the TPA. # The Respondent’s Prayers 1. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal; 1. Dismisses the Appeal in its entirety. 2. Uphold the additional assessments as confirmed by the Objection decision; 3. Orders the Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. # ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 1. The Tribunal having carefully considered the parties’ pleadings, documentation and submissions adduced before it notes that three issues call for determination; # Whether the Appeal is competent. * 1. **Whether the Appellant discharged its statutory burden of proof; and** 2. **Whether the assessment orders were justified.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. The Tribunal having established three issues for determination will proceed to analyse the same as follows; # Whether the Appeal is competent. 1. The dispute at hand relates to income tax assessments for the years 2015 and 2016 against which the Appellant had lodged a late objection on 23rd June 2020 via iTax and was acknowledged by the Respondent on 15th April 2024. The Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 7th October 2025. 1. The Appellant’s procedural lapse was when it lodged its Notice of Appeal on 7th October 2025 clearly outside the stipulated timeframe under Section 51(12) of the TPA and without leave of the Tribunal as couched under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (TATA). 2. The Appellant produced before the Tribunal the following documents in support of its case; 3. Notice of intention to Appeal acknowledgement dated 15th April 2024. 4. Objection Application acknowledgement receipt for the year 2015 dated 23rd June 2023. 5. Assessment order for income tax for year 2016 dated 18th September 2019 for Ksh 3,588,513.82 6. Assessment order for income tax for year 2015 dated 17 th September 2019 Ksh 10,454,180.76 7. Section 13(2) of TATA provides; *“(2) the Appellant shall within fourteen days from the date of filing the notice of appeal, submit enough copies, as maybe advised by the Tribunal of* 1. *a memorandum of appeal;* 2. *statements of facts; and* 3. *the appealable decision; and* 4. *such other documents as maybe necessary to enable the Tribunal to make a decision on the appeal”* 5. The Tribunal has perused the Appellant’s documents and notes that the appealable decision was not adduced before the Tribunal by the Appellant which is contrary to Section 13 (2) (c) of TATA. 1. Section 3 of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA) defines an appealable decision to mean an objection decision and any other decision made under a tax law other than – 2. *a tax decision; or* 3. *a decision made in the course of making a tax decision* 4. Section 52 (1) of the TPA provides that; *“A person who is dissatisfied with an appealable decision may appeal the decision to the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap 469A)”* 1. The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant filed its appeal without leave of the Tribunal. In this regard, Section 13(3) and (4) of the TAT Act which provides; *“(3) the Tribunal may upon application in writing through electronic means, extend the time for filing the notice of appeal and for submitting the documents referred in subsection (2).* *(4) an extension under subsection (3) may be granted owing to absence from Kenya, or sickness, or other reasonable cause that may prevent the applicant from filing the notice of appeal or submitting the documents within the specified period.”* 1. The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant’s Notice of appeal was lodged against the Respondent’s alleged decision dated 24th November 2022 which was not adduced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further notes that the Appellant appealed the decision close to 3 years after the Respondent’s decision was issued. This is contrary to Section 51(12) of TPA. 2. Section 51(12) of TPA provides; *“A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner under* *subsection (11) may appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days after being notified of the decision.”* 1. Flowing from the above analysis, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal herein is incompetent and is ripe for striking out. 2. The analysis of the residual issues for determination are hereby rendered moot. # FINAL DECISION 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Appeal is incompetent and Tribunal accordingly proceeds to make the following Orders: 2. The Appeal be and is hereby struck out. 3. Each party to bear its own costs. 4. It is so ordered. # DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. EUNICE NJERI NGANGA HON. BONIFACE KIBIY TERER HON. SANKALE SPENCER OLOLCHIKE** **HON. BILLY GRAHAM OKUMU MIJUNGU** Tax Appeals Tribunal Tribunal Date: 2026-07-27 12:00:26