Mumayaz Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement [2024] KETAT 1303 (KLR)

Mumayaz Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement (Tribunal Appeal E737 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1303 (KLR) (6 September 2024) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2024] KETAT 1303 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Tribunal Appeal E737 of 2023

E.N Wafula, Chair, G Ogaga, RO Oluoch, AK Kiprotich & Cynthia B. Mayaka, Members

September 6, 2024

Between

Mumayaz Limited

Appellant

and

Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement

Respondent

Judgment

1. The Appellant is a limited liability company registered under the Companies Act. Its principal activity is construction and supply of building materials.

2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, Cap 469 laws of Kenya (KRA Act). Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, KRA is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all revenue. For the performance of its function under Subsection (1), the Authority is mandated under Section 5(2) of the Act to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the KRA Act to assess, collect, and account for all revenues under those laws.

3. The Respondent stated that it conducted investigations into the affairs of the Appellant for the period 2015-2020 after it received intelligence that the Appellant was doing business with Garissa County Government and not remitting taxes.

4. The Respondent further stated that it analysed the bank statements from the Appellant’s accounts and established variances between the Appellant’s self-assessed returns and bank deposits and consequently subjected the variances to tax.

5. The Respondent issued a demand vide a letter dated 14th July 2023 which the Appellant objected to in an objection notice dated 17th July 2023.

6. The Appellant filed the application for late objection on 3rd August 2023.

7. The Respondent issued its objection decision on 28th September 2023 confirming the tax assessments.

8. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent’s objection decision, filed its Notice of Appeal on 26th October 2023.

The Appeal 9. The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of Appeal dated 26th October 2023 and filed on 2nd November 2023 which raised the following grounds: -a.That the Commissioner issued an objection decision rejecting the late objection on grounds that it was not supported by documents.b.That the Commissioner failed to consider the expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in the generation of the income, therefore resulting in excess assessments.c.That the Commissioner confirmed the assessments without due regard to all records, explanations and information provided by the Appellant, thereby failing to appreciate all issues presented.d.That the Commissioner rejected the late objection without giving the Appellant a chance to review the substance of the matter.e.That the assessments are in excess and punitive and go against the canons of taxation that relate to equality.f.That the Appellant has in possession all the supporting documents for verification.

Appellant’s Case 10. The Appellant’s case is premised on the Appellant’s Statement of Facts filed on 2nd November 2023 and the documents attached to it.

11. The Appellant stated that on 14th April 2021, the Respondent issued a demand letter of Kshs. 41,676,975. 00 comprising principal tax, penalties and interest for the years of income 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020.

12. That the demand was based on undeclared bank deposits in First Community Bank and National Bank of Kenya from all taxable sources for the periods between 2015 to 2020.

13. The Appellant stated that the Commissioner further issued an additional income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) assessment on iTax on 9th June 2021 for the periods of 2015 to 2020.

14. The Appellant stated that it lodged an objection on 17th July 2023, which it averred that the Respondent rejected on 25th July 2023.

15. That on 25th July 2023 the Appellant requested the Respondent for extension of time to lodge its objection, which the Respondent allowed.

16. The Appellant asserted that it lodged a late objection on 3rd August 2023, which the Respondent subsequently rejected on 28th September 2023 on the basis that there were no source documents to test the veracity of the Appellant’s financial statements.

17. The Appellant averred that it noted that there were genuine expenses and purchase invoices that were not claimed by the Respondent. That these related to expenses and purchases made which were wholly and exclusively incurred to generate the income.

18. The Appellant affirmed that all the supporting documents for the purchased items were available for verification.

Appellant’s prayer 19. The Appellant prayed that the aforementioned objection decision be set aside and annulled in a manner that is just, fair and reasonable.

Respondent’s Case 20. The Respondent’s case is premised on the following documents:a.The Respondent’s Statement of Facts dated 1st December 2023 and filed on 4th December 2023;b.The Respondent’s witness statement of Evans Mbuvi Muema dated 13th June 2024 and adopted by the Tribunal in evidence under oath on 16th July 2024; andc.The Respondent’s written submissions dated 29th July 2024 and filed on 2nd August 2024.

21. The Respondent stated that it conducted investigations into the affairs of the Appellant for the period 2015-2020 after it received intelligence that the Appellant was doing business with Garissa County Government and not remitting taxes.

22. The Respondent averred that its investigations revealed that the Appellant received payments from the Garissa County Government as tabulated in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts.

23. The Respondent stated that it also analysed the bank statements from the Appellant’s accounts domiciled at National Bank and First Community Bank and noted that most of the deposits were from various sources including Garissa County Government, Water Services Board, KERRA, World Vision and cash deposits from individuals.

24. The Respondent established variances between the Appellant’s self-assessed returns and bank deposits and consequently subjected the variances to tax.

25. The Respondent issued a demand vide a letter dated 14th July 2023 which the Appellant objected to in an objection notice dated 17th July 2023.

26. The Respondent averred that it noted that the objection notice was late and advised the Appellant to file an application for late objection in accordance with Section 51(6) of the Tax Procedures Act.

27. That the Appellant filed the application for late objection together with its financial statements to support it on 3rd August 2023.

28. It was the Respondent’s statement that it requested the Appellant to avail the source documents and reconciliations to support the financial statements vide a letter dated 16th September 2023 and followed up with a reminder to the Appellant, dated 23rd September 2023.

29. The Respondent asserted that the Appellant did not respond to the Respondent’s request for documentation, which resulted in the Respondent confirming the principal tax amounting to Kshs. 41,676,975. 00 in its objection decision that is the subject of this Appeal.

30. The Respondent stated that in exercising its mandate under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act, it issued additional assessments against the Appellant’s returns to reflect the true tax position of the Appellant.

31. The Respondent cited Section 56 of the Tax Procedures Act which stipulates that the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect.

32. The Respondent stated that after rejecting the tax assessment, it in various instances requested the Appellant to provide documents to support the objection, but the Appellant failed to do so despite being granted adequate opportunity to defend itself.

33. In addition, it was the Respondent’s averment that it reviewed the Appellant based on the documentation availed by the Appellant and that the Appellant’s failure to provide the requested source documents led the Respondent to use what was availed to it.

34. The Respondent submitted that the burden of proof is upon the Appellant to prove that the Respondent failed to consider the various expenses that the Appellant incurred during the period under assessment which resulted in the alleged unfair taxation.

35. The Respondent submitted that in order to shift the burden of proof from itself to the Respondent, the Appellant was meant to raise an objection against the assessment as provided for under Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act.

36. The Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant even before this Tribunal has not made any attempt to discharge the pending burden of proof.

37. On the issue of burden of proof, the Respondent referred to the case of Grace Njeri Githua v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (TAT No. 102 Of 2018), where the Tribunal emphasised the fact that the burden is on the Appellant to prove an assessment was wrong.

38. The Respondent referred to the case of TAT No. 55 of 2018 Boleyn International Limited vs Commissioner of Domestic Taxes where it was held:-“... on 8th March 2018, the Appellant lodged an objection with the Respondent. However, the said objection did not reiterate the grounds of objection, the corrections required to be made and the reasons for the amendments. Neither did the Appellant provide the relevant documents in support of its alleged objection. Therefore, there was no conceivable way the Respondent would have considered the Appellant’s objection as the same did not place itself within the parameters of Section 51(3) of the Tax Procedures Act.”

39. The Respondent also relied on the case of TAT No. 70 of 2017 Afya X-ray Centre Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes in which it was held that:-“From the foregoing chain of events, it Is our understanding that the Appellant failed in its duty in providing these documents, in order that a comprehensive audit of its affairs be done.Accordingly, the Respondent can hardly be faulted for raising the assessment in accordance with the availed documents. Moreover, the Appellant had an opportunity to counter the Respondent's finding after the preliminary finding and after the confirmation of the assessment. Both are instances, where the Appellant could have produced its books of accounts to counter the Respondent's assessment after all the Appellant by law bears the burden of proof...”

40. The Respondent’s witness reiterated the Respondent’s responses to the Appellant’s Memorandum of Appeal as covered in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts.

41. The Respondent further cited Section 32(1) of the Tax Procedures Act which states: -“A tax payable by a person under a tax law shall be a debt due to the Government and shall be payable to the Commissioner.”

42. The Respondent concluded that it was carefully guided by all relevant laws and followed due procedure in arriving at its decision.

Respondent’s prayers 43. The Respondent prayed that the Tribunal: -a.Upholds the Respondent's Confirmation assessment notices dated 28th September 2023 as proper and in conformity with the provisions of the law.b.Dismisses this Appeal with costs to the Respondent.

Issues for Determination 44. The Tribunal has considered the facts of the matter and the submissions made by the parties, and considers the issues for determination as follows:a.Whether the Respondent’s assessments were time-barred.b.Whether the Respondent was justified in issuing its objection decision dated 28th September 2023.

Analysis and Findings 45. The Respondent stated that it conducted investigations into the affairs of the Appellant for the period 2015-2020 after it received intelligence that the Appellant was doing business with Garissa County Government and not remitting taxes.

46. The Respondent further stated that it also analysed the bank statements from the Appellant’s accounts and issued income tax and VAT assessments that were based on unsupported variances established from comparing the Appellant’s bankings against the Appellant’s self-assessment declarations in the income tax and VAT returns for the periods 1st March 2014 to 28th February 2015, 1st March 2015 to 28th February 2016, 1st March 2018 to 28th February 2019 and 1st March 2019 to 28th February 2020 and VAT assessments for the periods February 2015, February 2016, February 2019 and February 2020.

47. The Respondent issued a demand notice and the Appellant, after correspondences with the Respondent, filed its late objection on 3rd August 2023 disputing the assessments in their entirety. The Respondent issued its objection decision on 28th September 2023 confirming the tax assessments, a decision which the Appellant appealed against at the Tribunal.

a. Whether the Respondent’s assessments were time-barred. 48. The Respondent stated that in exercising its mandate under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act, it issued additional assessments against the Appellant’s returns to reflect the true tax position of the Appellant.

49. Before delving into the merits of the Respondent’s income tax and VAT assessments and the Appellant’s arguments against them, the Tribunal refers to the appeal documents on record which show that the Appellant’s accounting period end is 28th February.

50. On 9th June 2021, the Respondent issued the Appellant with income tax assessments for the periods 1st March 2014 to 28th February 2015, 1st March 2015 to 28th February 2016, 1st March 2018 to 28th February 2019 and 1st March 2019 to 28th February 2020 and VAT assessments for the periods February 2015, February 2016, February 2019 and February 2020.

51. Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act is clear that the Respondent can only issue assessments before the expiry of five years from the date of submitting of a self-assessment by a taxpayer. It provides as follows: -“(4)The Commissioner may amend an assessment—(a)in the case of gross or wilful neglect, evasion, or fraud by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer, at any time; or(b)in any other case, within five years of—(i)for a self-assessment, the date that the self-assessment taxpayer submitted the self-assessment return to which the self-assessment relates; or(ii)for any other assessment, the date the Commissioner notified the taxpayer of the assessment.” Emphasis added

52. According to Section 31(4)(a) of the Tax Procedures Act, the Respondent may only issue an assessment beyond the five years where the Respondent can prove gross or wilful neglect, evasion, or fraud by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer. It is thus clear that an assessment issued under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act beyond the five-year limit is unlawful.

53. The Tribunal has examined the Appellant’s pleadings and notes that the issues under Section 31(4)(a) of the Tax Procedures Act regarding gross or wilful neglect, evasion or fraud on the part of the Appellant were neither pleaded, transacted and or proved by the Respondent.

54. The Tribunal reiterates its holding in a similar matter TAT Appeal No. 411 of 2021, City Gas East Africa v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement where Tribunal held that the Respondent erred in assessing the Appellant for a period beyond five years when there was no evidence of wilful neglect or fraud.

55. The Respondent’s assessment was dated 9th June 2021, meaning that the earliest periods that the Respondent could assess was 1st March 2015 to February, 2016 for income tax and April 2016 for VAT.

56. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s assessment of income tax for the year 1st March 2014 to February 2016 and VAT March 2016 was illegal and the same was not justified.

b. Whether the Respondent was justified in issuing its objection decision dated 28th September 2023. 57. The Appellant disputed the Respondent’s objection decision and the confirmed assessments averring that the Commissioner confirmed the assessments without due regard to all records, explanations and information provided by the Appellant and that the Respondent failed to consider the expenses wholly and exclusive incurred in the generation of the income, therefore resulting in excess assessments.

58. The Respondent averred that it reviewed the Appellant based on the documentation availed by the Appellant and that the Appellant’s failure to provide the requested source documents, led the Respondent to confirm the assessments.

59. The Tribunal reviewed the documents furnished by both Parties in this Appeal, and established that the Appellant conceded to the Respondent’s computation of undeclared income from the banking analysis that the Respondent undertook.

60. The Tribunal takes note that the Appellant furnished the Tribunal with its calculation of what income tax and VAT it considered to be due in the period of assessment in a document that the Appellant had titled “Mumayaz Limited Summary Objection Schedule. In those workings the Appellant arrived at its perceived income tax and VAT assessments by ascertaining gross bankings and computing bankings net of VAT, then deducting therefrom:a.amounts it described as cost of goods and expenses to determine its taxable income for purposes of computing its income tax liability; andb.amounts it described as purchases to determine a balance which it then charged 16% VAT on for purposes of computing its VAT liability.

61. The Tribunal observes from the document the Appellant presented in its Appeal, that the Appellant did not controvert the Respondent’s ascertainment of undeclared income from the banking analysis the Respondent conducted, on which the Respondent issued assessments on.

62. It was the Appellant’s assertion that the Respondent failed to consider the expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in the generation of the income, therefore resulting in excess assessments, and that the Respondent confirmed the assessments without due regard to all records, explanations and information provided by the Appellant.

63. The Tribunal, therefore, considers the key issue in the present case to be the documentation to substantiate the Appellant’s claims: -a.That the Appellant had deductible expenses to reduce its income tax liability which the Respondent failed to consider to vacate Respondent’s income tax assessment; andb.That the Appellant had claimed deductible input VAT which the Respondent failed to consider to vacate the VAT assessment.

Income Tax Assessments for 2016, 2019 and 2020 64. The Appellant disputed the Respondent’s income tax assessments citing that the Respondent in assessing it, failed to consider its expenses that it wholly and exclusively incurred in the generation of income, which led to excess assessments.

65. The Tribunal refers to Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act which provides as follows:“For the purpose of ascertaining the total income of any person for a year of income there shall, subject to section 16 of this Act, be deducted all expenditure incurred in such year of income which is expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred by him in the production of that income.”

66. Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) Act place the burden of disproving the Commissioner upon the taxpayer. To satisfy this burden, a taxpayer ought to submit all the relevant evidentiary material in its possession.

67. Section 54A(1) of the Income Tax Act envisions that a person carrying on a business must keep certain records and documents which in the opinion of the Commissioner are adequate for computing tax. The legislation provides as follows: -“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.”

68. The Tribunal refers to the case of Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Trical and Hard Limited (Tax Appeal E146 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 9927 (KLR) where the Court held at paragraph 26 that: -“From the above, it is clear that the evidential burden of proof rests with the taxpayer to disprove the Commissioner and that once competent and relevant evidence is produced, then this burden now shifts to the Commissioner. I have emphasized and underlined ‘competence’ and ‘relevance’ because it is only evidence that meets these two tests that demolishes presumption of correctness and swings the burden to the Commissioner. This means that even if one avails evidence but then it is found that the same is incompetent or irrelevant, then the burden continues to remain with the tax payer.”(3)Every person required under subsection (1) to keep records shall, at all reasonable times, avail the records to an authorised officer for inspection and shall give the officer every facility necessary to inspect the records.”

69. Section 23(1) of the Tax Procedures Act also provides that a taxpayer is required to keep records as follows: -“A person shall—(a)maintain any document required under a tax law, in either of the official languages;(b)maintain any document required under a tax law so as to enable the person's tax liability to be readily ascertained; and(c)subject to subsection (3), retain the document for a period of five years from the end of the reporting period to which it relates or such shorter period as may be specified in a tax law.”

70. In the absence of relevant documentation to facilitate the assessment of a tax liability, the Respondent is empowered under Section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act (TPA) to use its best judgement in making its tax assessment.

71. The Tribunal perused the documents that the Appellant presented to the Tribunal and finds that the Appellant only provided its accounts and did not prove to the Tribunal that it wholly and exclusively incurred the expenditure on expenses that it claimed to be deductible in the years 2016, 2019 and 2020 in the production of its income, as required under Section 15, subject to Section 16 of the Income Tax Act.

72. The Tribunal also finds that despite the law under Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act expressly placing a burden on the Appellant as a taxpayer to prove its case, the Appellant instead did not adduce any relevant source documents it is required to keep under Section 54A(1) of the Income Tax Act to support its claims, despite the Appellant stating that it had in its possession all the supporting documents for verification. Thus, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant failed to persuade the Tribunal to arrive at a determination different from that in the Respondent’s objection decision.

73. Based on the foregoing the Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not discharge its burden of proving that the Respondent’s income tax assessments for the periods 2016, 2019 and 2020 were incorrect or excessive.

VAT Assessments for February 2019 and February 2020 74. The Appellant disputed the Respondent’s VAT assessments citing that the Respondent in assessing it, failed to consider its expenses that it wholly and exclusively incurred in the generation of income, which led to excess assessments.

75. Guided by the provisions of Section 17(1), (2) and (3) of the VAT Act 2013, the Tribunal reviewed the Appellant’s pleadings and evidence to establish whether the Appellant discharged its burden of proving that the Respondent’s VAT assessments for February 2019 and February 2020 were incorrect, as required under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.

76. Section 17(1), (2) and (3) of the VAT Act 2013 provides that: -“(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations, input tax on a taxable supply to, or importation made by, a registered person may, at the end of the tax period in which the supply or importation occurred, be deducted by the registered person in a return for the period, subject to the exceptions provided under this section, from the tax payable by the person on supplies by him in that tax period, but only to the extent that the supply or importation was acquired to make taxable supplies.(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), or(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;(d)a credit note in the case of input tax deducted under section 16(2); or(e)a debit note in the case of input tax deducted under section 16(5).”

77. As provided under Section 17(1) of the VAT Act, 2013, the right to deduct input VAT is premised on the assumption that a registered taxpayer acquired a supply or importation to make taxable supplies subject to the provisions of the VAT Act and VAT Regulations, 2017.

78. Section 17(2) of the VAT Act 2013 provides parameters within which the right by a registered person to deduct input VAT can be exercised as summarised below: -a.A deduction for input tax shall not be allowed until the first tax period in which the person holds documentation referred to in Section 17(3) of the VAT Act.b.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.

79. Section 43 of the VAT Act envisions that a person carrying on a business must keep certain records and documents and avail the same to the Commissioner for inspection. It provides as follows: -“(1)A person shall, for the purposes of this Act, keep in the course of his business, a full and true written record, whether in electronic form or otherwise, in English or Kiswahili of every transaction he makes and the record shall be kept in Kenya for a period of five years from the date of the last entry made therein.(2)The records to be kept under subsection (1) shall include—(a)copies of all tax invoices and simplified tax invoices issued in serial copies number order;(b)of all credit and debit notes issued, in chronological order;(c)purchase invoices, copies of customs entries, receipts for the payment of customs duty or tax, and credit and debit notes received, to be filed chronologically either by date of receipt or under each supplier’s name;(d)details of the amounts of tax charged on each supply made or received(d)details of the amounts of tax charged on each supply made or received and in relation to all services to which section 10 applies, sufficient written evidence to identify the supplier and the recipient, and to show the nature and quantity of services supplied, the time of supply, the place of supply, the consideration for the supply, and the extent to which the supply has been used by the recipient for a particular purpose;(e)tax account showing the totals of the output tax and the input tax in each period and a net total of the tax payable or the excess tax carried forward, as the case may be, at the end of each period;(f)copies of stock records kept periodically as the Commissioner may determine;(g)details of each supply of goods and services from the business premises, unless such details are available at the time of supply on invoices issued at, or before, that time; and(h)such other accounts or records as may be specified, in writing, by the Commissioner.” Emphasis added.

80. The Tribunal is further guided by the decision in Tax Appeal No. E026 of 2020 Highlands Mineral Water Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes where Majanja J. at paragraph 39 held that: -“39. I therefore find and hold that section 17(1) and (2) of the VAT Act, permits the taxpayer to claim input tax at any time provided the claim falls within 6 months from period which the supply or importation occurred notwithstanding that the VAT Return is filed late. In other words, the fact of late filing does not preclude a taxpayer from claiming input VAT and that this claim ought to be allowed as long as Return is filed and claimed within six months from the date of supply or importation.”

81. It is the Tribunal’s considered view that the Appellant was required to prove that it satisfied the parameters set in Section 17 of the VAT Act to have the Respondent reduce the VAT it assessed for the periods February 2019 and February 2020 from the turnovers established from the undeclared incomes.

82. The Tribunal reviewed the pleadings and documents adduced by the Appellant and finds that the Appellant merely made averments regarding the Respondent’s failure to consider the Appellant’s expenses in ascertaining the net VAT payable, but did not adduce its VAT returns or relevant source documents that are prerequisites for deducting input VAT under Section 17 of the VAT Act and that it is required to keep under Section 43 of the VAT Act to support its claim of input tax deductions to reduce its VAT assessed as payable for the periods February 2019 and February 2020, despite the Appellant stating that it had in its possession all the supporting documents for verification.

83. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not discharge its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Respondent’s additional assessments of VAT for February 2019 and February 2020 were incorrect or excessive as required under Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act.

84. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent was justified in issuing the objection decision dated 28th September 2023 except for the time-barred confirmed assessments of income tax and VAT.

Final Decision 85. The upshot of the above analysis is that the Tribunal finds that the Appeal partially succeeds and accordingly proceeds to make the following orders:a.The Appeal be and is hereby partially allowed.b.The Respondent’s objection decision dated 28th September 2023 be and is hereby varied in the following terms:i.The income tax assessment for the year 1st March 2014 to 28th February 2016 be and is hereby set aside.ii.The Value Added Tax assessments for February 2015 and March 2016 be and are hereby set aside.iii.The income tax assessments for the years 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020 be and are hereby upheld.iv.The Value Added Tax assessments for February 2019 and February 2020 be and are hereby upheld.c.Each party to bear its own costs.

86. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024. ERIC NYONGESA WAFULA - CHAIRMANGLORIA A. OGAGA - MEMBERDR. RODNEY O. OLUOCH - MEMBERABRAHAM K. KIPROTICH - MEMBERCYNTHIA B. MAYAKA - MEMBER