https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/275

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO. E1251 OF 2025** RANEN OCHUNA MEDICAL CENTRE ………………………………….….... APPELLANT VS **COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL SERVICES & BOARD SERVICES………...……..RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a registered taxpayer and operates in the medical and health services industry. 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 Appellant was issued with additional assessments with respect to Corporation Tax for the years 2021 to 2023, totaling Kshs. 6,978,192.64, allegedly on the basis of under-declared income when compared to actual bankings from NHIF and other sources. 1. The Appellant lodged Objections to the said assessments on 17th April 2025, where after the Respondent issued its Objection Decision on 5th June 2025, fully disallowing the Appellant’s Objection. 2. Aggrieved by the Respondent’s decision of 5th June 2025, the Appellant lodged this Appeal before the Tax Appeals Tribunal. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appellant filed memorandum of appeal dated 4th November 2025 on the following grounds of appeal: 2. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by overstating the Appellant’s revenues for the periods in question based on erroneous summation of bank credits. 3. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by asserting that it had not been supplied with adequate documents by the Appellant, whereas the appellant had supplied all relevant invoices and other documentary evidence to support the expenses claimed. 4. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by confirming the assessment without due regard of all records/documents, explanations and information provided, thereby failing to appreciate all issues presented and raised by the Appellant before confirming the assessments. 5. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by disallowing deductible expenses claimed by the Appellant. 6. That the Respondent erred in law and fact by raising additional assessments that are speculative, excessive and erroneous. **THE APPELLANT’S CASE** 1. The Appellant relied on its statement of facts dated and filed on 4th November 2025 together with the documents attached thereto. The Appellant did not file written submissions. 2. In support of first ground of appeal, the Appellant averred that the Respondent erred by disregarding the actual turnover realized by the Appellant in its financial statements and tax returns by arbitrary subjecting the Appellant to a bank analysis method that unjustly increased the Appellant’s turnover for the periods under review. 3. The Appellant further averred that the Respondent alleged that the basis of assessment was an under-declaration of corporation tax for the year 2021 to 2023 based on a variance emanating from a banking test and that the self-declared income tax turn-over was lower than the turnover established from the total bankings from NHIF. 4. The Appellant asserted that the Respondent erred on making the assumption that all bank credits were related to NHIF payments. 5. The Appellant confirmed that it indeed supplied the Respondent with all supporting documentation to demonstrate that all income earned had been accurately declared in their income tax returns. 6. The Appellant stated that it obliged and complied with the Respondent’s request for documents and as such availed copies of his bank statements, financial statements, sales ledgers, purchases ledgers among other documents. 7. The Appellant argued that having provided the aforementioned documents to the Respondent for verification, it is the Appellant’s position that the Respondent ought not to have used bank credits to assess taxes. 8. It further argued that, having deliberately ignored the documents submitted by the Appellant for review, the Respondent therefore without any basis or justification adjusted the turnover of the Appellant upwards for the periods under review by subjecting the Appellant’s bank accounts to scrutiny on assumption that all bank credits were income. 9. Based on the foregoing, the Appellant averred that the opportunistic and arbitrary action of the Respondent to disregard the documents provided and instead subject the Appellant’s bank credits to tax is unsubstantiated and speculative. 10. In support of the second ground of appeal, the Appellant averred that the Respondent’s action to raise Income Tax assessments despite having been supplied with all the requisite documents was an illegality under the general fair administrative action contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 11. The Appellant posited that the Respondent erred by failing to rely on the Appellant’s evidential documents in arriving at its impugned decision dated 5th June 2025. 12. The Appellant averred that the Respondent, without any basis or justification, adjusted the turnover of the Appellant upwards for the periods under review and thereafter erroneously assessed additional taxes. 13. It maintained that during the period under review, it kept proper books of accounts and reconciliations, which it relied on in support of its Objections. 14. However, despite the Appellant providing all the information, explanations and documentation, the Respondent went ahead to disregard the information, explanations and documents and issued its impugned assessments and proceeded to erroneously confirm them in total disregard of the information provided. 15. Accordingly, the Appellant averred that the Respondent’s failure to recognize supplied information resulted in an excessive and erroneous assessment. 16. The Appellant submitted that it would have been prudent, within reasonable judgment and information available, for the Respondent to take into consideration all the records and information provided by the Appellant in making its decision. 17. The above notwithstanding, the Appellant reiterated that had the Respondent considered all the documents and information submitted to it by the Appellant, then it would not have made the impugned decision. 18. Consequently, the Appellant pleaded with the Honourable Tribunal to associate itself with the judgment of J. Odunga (as he then was) in the case of **Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Ex parte Jaffer Mohamed [2015] eKLR** at paragraph 46 where the Court held that; *A taxing authority is not entitled to pluck a figure from the air and impose it upon a taxpayer without some rational basis for arriving at that figure and not another figure.* 19. The Appellant averred that the Respondent therefore erred in law and fact by raising additional assessments that are speculative, excessive and erroneous. 20. In support of the third ground of Appeal, the Appellant asserted that Respondent erred in law and fact by arbitrarily adjusting the Appellant’s turnover and applying a blanket 40% expense rate without considering the Appellant’s explanations, records, and reconciliations, thereby resulting in an inflated and erroneous tax assessment. 21. The Appellant averred that the Respondent arbitrarily proceeded to disallow some expenses which had been incurred by the Appellant in generation of the taxable income. 22. According to the Appellant the Respondent erred by adjusting the Appellant’s declared turnover upwards for the years on the basis of NHIF bank receipts, without carrying out a proper reconciliation or appreciating the nature of payments received from NHIF. 23. It maintained that payments from NHIF represent reimbursements for medical services rendered to patients under contractual arrangements and therefore do not necessarily equate to gross turnover for tax purposes. These amounts ought to have been reconciled against treatment costs, operational deductions, and timing differences. 24. The Appellant affirmed that it provided the Respondent with financial statements for the periods in question indicating the incomes and expenses for each particular year. 25. The Appellant opined that it is therefore prejudicial on the part of the Respondent to acknowledge the income and arbitrarily ignore expenses which were used to generate that particular income. 26. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent acted contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act which dictates that tax shall be paid on gains from business. In essence, gains refer to Income less expenses incurred to generate that income. 27. The Appellant stated that in the interpretation of tax legislation, the statute must be looked at using slightly different lenses as the language imposing the tax must receive a strict construction leaving no room for intendment or implication; this was well brought out in the case of **Cape Brandly Syndicate vs I.R. Commissioners (1921)** and **Mount Kenya Bottlers Ltd & 3 others vs Attorney General & 3 others NRB CA Civil APPEAL No. 164 of 2023.** 28. It argued that the Respondent disallowed some of the expenses claimed by the Appellant citing lack of supporting documentation. 29. The Appellant asseverated that had the Respondent appreciated all explanations, documents and information provided by the Appellant, he would not have made the impugned decision. 30. Based on the foregoing, it was the Appellant’s position that the opportunistic and arbitrary action of the Respondent to issue the default tax assessments is unsubstantiated and unfounded. **Appellant’s Prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed that this Honourable Tribunal considers its grounds of appeal and finds that: 2. This appeal be allowed; 3. The Respondent’s decision dated 5th June 2025 be set aside and reversed; 4. The costs of and incidental to this appeal be awarded to the Appellant; and 5. Any other orders the Tribunal may deem fit. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. In response to the appeal, the Respondent lodged a Statement of facts dated 28th May 2026 and filed on 12th June 2025 and written submissions dated and filed on 12th June 2026. 2. In response to ground 1 of appeal that the Respondent erred by overstating the Appellant’s revenues based on erroneous summation of bank credits, the Respondent averred that the turnover established through the NHIF banking analysis was accurate, lawfully derived and consistent with the information available to the Respondent at the time of assessment. 3. It cited section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 which empowers the Commissioner to raise a best judgement assessment where a taxpayer fails to file returns, fails to maintain adequate records, or where the Commissioner is not satisfied with the accuracy of the information or records produced. Section 31(2) requires such assessments to be made to the best of the Commissioneres judgement having regard to all relevant information. 4. The Respondent averred that the analysis was not based on a blanket assumption and that all bank credits constituted income. 5. The Respondent further averred that the analysis specifically identified NHIF payments as being the primary and declared source of the Appellant’s healthcare service income and compared total NHIF bankings against the Appellant’s self-declared turnover in its Income Tax returns which resulted to unexplained variances. 6. The Respondent stated that Section 51(3)(c) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 requires an objection to state the ground of objection and the amendment sought. 7. The Respondent pointed out that the Appellant’s bare assertion of erroneous assessments in iTax Objection did not constitute adequate grounds, and no reconciliation or explanation was ever provided. 8. It submitted that Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 places the burden of proof squarely on the Appellant to demonstrate that the Respondent’s assessment is wrong. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent averred that the Appellant has not discharged this burden. 9. In response to ground 2 and 3, that the Respondent failed to consider documents supplied by the Appellant, the Respondent averred that the ground was factually incorrect and directly contradicted by the chronological record of the objection proceedings. 10. The Respondent argued that the Objection Decision of 5th June 2025 expressly set out the factual sequence in that the Appellant’s original objection application lodged on 17th April 2025 lacked sufficient grounds of objection and was not accompanied by any supporting documentation. 11. The Respondent averred that it extended an invitation via email dated 2nd May 2025 specifically requesting the Appellant to provide sales ledgers, copies of sales invoices and contractual agreements, certified copies of M-pesa and bank statements, Z-reports, and a reconciliation of variances. 12. The Respondent averred that no response or documentation was received within the stipulated period and even after follow-up reminders were issued on 19th May 2025 and 27th May 2025, and multiple telephone attempts were made, the Appellant failed to issue a substantive response. 13. It stated that Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 requires every person to maintain proper books of accounts and records to support their tax declaration. Section 51(3)(c) further requires that an objection be accompanied by a substantiated position supported by relevant documentation. The Appellant failed to comply with either requirement during the objection process. 14. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent categorically denied that any such document was received during the objection process and this assertion is a matter that the Appellant must strictly prove with specificity. 15. The Respondent asserted that its Objection decision was issued pursuant to Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, and the Objection decision explicitly addressed all grounds raised in the Appellant’s objection. 16. It stated that Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 guarantees the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. That Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 gives effect to the right. 17. The Respondent averred that its process was procedurally fair as the Appellant was notified of the basis of the assessment, give an opportunity to object, given further opportunity to validate its objection, reminded twice, and the assessment only confirmed after no response was forthcoming. 18. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent stated that it cannot be faulted for exercising its statutory duty in the face of the Appellant’s prolonged silence. 19. In response to ground 4 of appeal on alleged wrongful disallowance of deductible expenses, the Respondent averred that the assessment made reasonable and generous provisions for expenses through the application of 40% expense allowance against the established income. 20. Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 470) allows deductions for expenses that are wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income. However, the right to claim deductible expenses is conditioned on the taxpayer maintaining adequate records and providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the nature, quantum, and business purpose of those expenses, pursuant to Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015. 21. In response to ground 5 of appeal on alleged speculative, excessive and erroneous assessment, the Respondent averred that the assessments are based on verifiable, objective data and have a sound legal and factual foundation. 22. The Respondent averred that it used the Appellant’s own NHIF banking data as the foundation of the revised income figures and where a taxpayer under declares income relative to third-party verified receipts, the resulting assessment is not speculative as it is evidence-based. 23. It further averred that the Appellant has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the NHIF banking figures used by the Respondent are incorrect, inflated, or otherwise unreliable. 24. The Respondent stated that Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015 places the burden of demonstrating that the assessment is wrong on the Appellant. 25. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent averred that the Appellant must adduce objective, contemporaneous records to discharge this burden. **The Respondent’s written submissions** 1. The Respondent filed written submissions dated 12th June 2026 and filed on even date. 2. On whether the Respondent was lawfully empowered to raise additional Corporation Income Tax assessments on the basis of NHIF banking data, the Respondent submitted that Section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act empowers the Commissioner to make an assessment of the tax payable to the best of the Commissioner's judgement where a person fails to file a return, fails to maintain adequate records, or where the Commissioner is not satisfied with the accuracy of the information or records submitted. Section 31(2) requires that such assessment be made having regard to all relevant information available. 3. The Respondent submitted that the NHIF banking records were independently generated, third-party verified data and not the Respondent's own estimates or extrapolations. They represented actual confirmed payments from the National Health Insurance Fund to the Appellant, which the Appellant itself had accepted and deposited into its accounts. 4. It relied on the case of **Avery Lounge Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Income Tax Appeal E213 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 769 (KLR)** where the court ruled that objective third-party banking data possesses a high degree of reliability and serves as the best available turnover proxy when a taxpayer fails to produce proper ledgers, invoices, or credible audited accounts to account for the discrepancy. 5. The Respondent submitted that it specifically identified NHIF payments and not general bank credits as the foundation of the assessment and that the Appellant's contention that revenues were overstated through "erroneous summation of bank credits" is a bare assertion that is not supported by any documentary evidence. 6. It submitted that the burden of proof rests on the Taxpayer and in this case the Respondent properly relied on documents availed and the Appellant failed to discharge this burden. 7. The Respondent further submitted that it used a methodology that is both sound and legally defensible as it did not proceed on the assumption that all bank credits were income but it specifically isolated NHIF payments as the income source and compared them against the Appellant's own declared figures. The variance speaks for itself. 8. It relied on the case of **Ng’ang’a v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Coordination (Tax Appeal E029 of 2025) [2026**] where the Tribunal held that the assessment by KRA enjoys a presumption of correctness until rebutted by probative documentary evidence presented by the taxpayer. 9. It further relied on the case of **Kenya Revenue Authority V Man Diesel & Turbo Se, Kenya [2021] eKLR** where the court held that Section 56 of the TPA in peremptory terms places burden of proof in tax cases on the taxpayer. 10. The Respondent also cited the case of **Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar AIR 1952 Pat 235** where the court held that *"The officer is to make an assessment to the best of his judgment against a person who is in default as regards supplying information...”* 11. On whether the Objection decision was lawfully issued, the Respondent submitted that it categorically denied the allegation by the Appellant that it failed to consider documents supplied by the Appellant. 12. The Respondent submitted that Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act prescribes the requirements for a valid notice of objection however the Appellant’s objection satisfied none of these requirements and the bare assertion that the assessment was "erroneous" without identifying any specific error, without providing any reconciliation, or attaching any documentation did not constitute a valid substantiated objection. 13. It relied on **Zunaksha Investment Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E11010f2024) [2025] eKLR** which supported the Commissioner's right to issue additional assessments where documentation is insufficient to ascertain the correct tax liability. 14. On whether the Respondent’s application of 40% expense allowance was reasonable in the circumstances, the Respondent submitted that Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that deductions shall be allowed for expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in the production of income. However, the right to claim deductions is not automatic as it is conditioned on the taxpayer maintaining adequate records under Section 23 of the Tax Procedures Act and providing sufficient, contemporaneous documentation to substantiate the nature, quantum and business purpose of the claimed expenses. 15. On whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proof under Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant was given an opportunity to present its case by way of documentary evidence which it squandered prior to the Objection Decision. 16. It relied on the case of **George v Federal Commissioner of Taxation**, where it was held that “the burden lies upon the taxpayer of establishing affirmatively that the amount of taxable income for which he has been assessed exceeds the actual taxable income which he has derived during the year of income. 17. The Respondent also relied on the following cases: 18. **in Republic v. Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Yaya Towers Limited [2009] eKLR,** 19. **Zunaksha Investment Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E11010f2024) [2025] eKLR** 20. **Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v. Commissioner of 5 : Domestic Taxes [TAT Appeal No. E025 of 2021],** 21. **Fintel Limited v. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2015) eKLR.** 22. **Republic V KRA: Proto Energy Limited [2022] eKLR.** **ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION** 1. Having examined the pleadings and submissions made by the parties, the Tribunal identified the following issue for determination: **Whether the Respondent was justified in invalidating the Appellant’s objection.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. Having identified the issue for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder. 2. The Tribunal observes from the record that the Appellant lodged its late Objection on 17th April 2025, against income tax assessment orders issued by the Respondent on 31st January 2025. The Respondent's case is that this Objection was not validly lodged because it did not state precisely the grounds of objection with the required specificity, nor did it annex the requisite supporting documents. 3. The Respondent further averred that it invited the Appellant, via email dated 2nd May 2025, to provide supporting documentation including sales ledgers, copies of sales invoices and contractual agreements, certified copies of M-Pesa and bank statements, Z-reports, and a reconciliation of variances. The Respondent stated that no response or documentation was received within the stipulated period, and follow-up reminders were issued on 19th May 2025 and 27th May 2025. 4. The Appellant, on the other hand, contended that it supplied the Respondent with all supporting documentation to demonstrate that all income earned had been accurately declared in their income tax returns, including bank statements, financial statements, sales ledgers, and purchases ledgers. 5. The Tax Procedures Act mandates a taxpayer who disputes a tax decision to first lodge an objection against that tax decision under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act before proceeding under any other law. In this regard, Section 51(1) to the TPA provides as follows: - ‘‘*A taxpayer who wishes to dispute a tax decision shall first lodge an objection against that tax decision under this section before proceeding under any other written law.’’* 1. Section 51(2) of the Tax Procedures Act provides that: *“taxpayer who disputes a tax decision may lodge a notice of objection to the decision, in writing, with the Commissioner within thirty days of being notified of the decision.”* 1. Under Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act, 2015, for a notice of objection to be treated as validly lodged, it must satisfy three cumulative requirements, and the said sections provides as follows: "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. The Tribunal has carefully looked at the documents record and notes the following chronology of events: 2. By the letter dated 2nd May 2026, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s late Objection application submitted on 17th April 2025 and informed the Appellant that, to proceed with the review of the objection, it required additional documents supporting the grounds of objection submitted not later than Friday 9th May 2025. These documents included: 3. Detailed breakdown of sales ledgers; 4. Sales invoices and contractual agreements; 5. Certified copies of mpesa and bank statements; 6. Z reports; 7. Reconciliation of all withholding certificates issued and when same was declared. 8. The Appellant replied to the Respondents email on 15th May 2025 informing the Respondent that a lot of Staff had left the facility including those who managed the email account and their absence made it difficult to access the emails since Appellant was not acquainted with the passwords. 9. On 4th June 2025, the Respondent wrote a final reminder informing the Appellant that the deadline of Friday 9th May had expired and the Respondent had not received any of the requested records for review. It further pointed out that the amount was due and payable in the absence of a valid objection. 10. On 5th June 2025, the Respondent issued its objection decision where in, it rejected the grounds of objection and confirmed the assessment order issued on 31st January 2025 amounting to principal taxes of Kshs. 4,978,193. 11. The Tribunal notes that Section 51(4) of the TPA grants the Respondent the discretion to determine and notify a taxpayer who has lodged an objection when a notice of objection has not been validly lodged. 12. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent complied with its mandate under section 51(4) of the TPA by notifying the taxpayer that the notice of objection was invalid and by notifying the taxpayer on what to do to rectify the problem. The failure by the Appellant to validate the objection led the Respondent to reject the appellant’s objection for failure to meet the requirements of section 51(3) of the TPA. 13. The Tribunal is guided by the Court of Appeal’s decision in **Geo Chem Middle East v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes (Civil Appeal No. E581 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1531 (KLR),** which clarified that a determination by the Respondent under Section 51(4) of the TPA that an objection has not been validly lodged is an appealable decision. The Court further held that such a decision is distinct from an objection decision on the merits under Section 51(11) of the TPA. 14. Accordingly, although the Respondent’s letter dated 5th June 2025 is described as an “objection decision”, the Tribunal must look to its substance rather than its title. Its substance was a determination that the Appellant’s objection could not proceed because the Appellant had not complied with the validity requirements prescribed under Section 51(3) of the TPA. The Tribunal’s mandate in this Appeal is therefore confined to determining whether the Respondent was justified in making that validity determination. It cannot determine the correctness of the income tax assessment or its quantum, those being merits questions which could only arise after a valid objection and a decision under Section 51(11) of the TPA. 15. The requirements in Section 51(3) are cumulative. Thus, the Appellant was required to state precise grounds of objection, specify the amendments sought and the reasons for them, settle or seek time to settle the undisputed tax, and submit all relevant documents relating to the objection. A failure to satisfy any one of these statutory requirements renders the objection invalid. 16. In the present matter, the Tribunal observes that the Respondent requested the Appellant to supply specific documents necessary to verify the grounds of objection, including sales ledgers, invoices, contracts, certified M-Pesa and bank statements, Z-reports, and reconciliations. The Appellant’s response of 15th May 2025 did not provide the requested documents. Instead, it explained that staff members who managed the email account had left and that the Appellant could not access the relevant passwords. While the Tribunal appreciates the operational difficulty expressed by the Appellant, that explanation did not amount to compliance with Section 51(3)(c) of the TPA. 17. The Respondent thereafter issued a final reminder on 4th June 2025, notifying the Appellant that the documents had not been received and that, in the absence of a valid objection, the assessed tax remained due and payable. The Appellant has not placed before the Tribunal evidence showing that it subsequently submitted the requested documents to the Respondent before the impugned decision was issued. 18. The Appellant’s assertion that it provided bank statements, financial statements, sales ledgers and purchases ledgers is unsupported by evidence demonstrating when those documents were submitted, the mode of submission, their acknowledgement by the Respondent, or their connection to the precise variances forming the basis of the assessment. Assertions in pleadings and submissions, without supporting documentary evidence, do not discharge the statutory burden of proof. 19. Section 56(1) of the TPA places the burden upon the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. In this Appeal, the Appellant bore the specific burden of proving that its notice of objection satisfied all the requirements of Section 51(3), particularly the requirement under Section 51(3)(c) that all relevant documents relating to the objection be submitted. The Appellant has not discharged that burden. 20. The Tribunal consequently finds that the Respondent acted within its statutory mandate under Section 51(4) of the TPA in determining that the Appellant’s objection had not been validly lodged. The Respondent identified the documents required, afforded the Appellant an opportunity to provide them, issued reminders, and communicated the consequence of non-compliance. There is therefore no basis upon which the Tribunal may fault the Respondent’s validity determination. 21. Having reached that finding, the Tribunal makes no pronouncement on the substantive correctness of the income tax assessment issued on 31st January 2025 or the principal tax of Kshs. 4,978,193.00. Those are merit issues which were not determined through a valid objection process under Section 51(11) of the TPA. The Appellant’s challenge to the Respondent’s decision must therefore fail. **FINAL DECISION** 1. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal lacks merit. The Tribunal proceeds to issue the following Orders:- 2. The Appeal be and is hereby dismissed 3. The Respondent’s decision dated 5th June 2025 be and is hereby upheld. 4. Each party to bear its own costs. 5. 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**