The court of Appeal noted as follows;
“Pili, as we have seen, made a nil return of income for the year 2004. It alleged it was not trading for that year and that therefore, could not have earned any income upon which tax could have been levied. But we now know, and the Commissioner came to know in May 2006 that around 8th December 2004 Pili had a large amount of money in its accounts with the Bank. It may well be that Pili did not trade in the year 2004 and the money in its bank account did not come from trading. It may be that the money did not accrue in and was not derived from Kenya. But the money was in a bank account in Kenya and it was in the account of Pili. Prima facie, it was Pili’s money. Instead of declaring a nil return, why would Pili not declare the presence of that money and then explain to the Commissioner why tax was not payable on that money””