CTA Case No. 4846 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY STA. IRENE RUBBER CORPORATION C.T.A. CASE NO. 4846 th1u ita P ~ ident no GE:?n r 1 Manager, JOAQUIN C. AQUINO, SR., Petition � - u ve1~ HON. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, thru HO � HERl'IINIA D. DE GUZHAN, Acot g. He d Revenu Executive Assist nt, R- pondent.. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOL..UT::t:ON Respond 1t Com1iosioner o Intern I Revenue, in a verbal motion 1� de in open court and ubsequentl)' through a memor ndum filed on Nov mber 10, 1993, seeks the dis is l oi the instant petit�on fo ev ev on the ground f J. ok o.f j ur iadiction. She C�ntend th&t the appeal i not cognizable by this Court aince the sses Me>nt h not been prate-ted or oonte ted ithin thirty ( 0) d ya :trom receipt thereof. pu suant to Section 229 of the Ta). od ; hence, there could not be any d cis1on appe 1 ble to th1s Court a con.emplated in Sec 7<1> of Republic Act 1125. We agree with respondent. 239

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4846 -2- Th p rtin n f cts as al ed in the petition for r vi w nd r cor of th c s disc o e th t petitioner. a corpor tion du y or niz d under th ava o:f the Philip in wi of:fice t Pr p rid d, Agu an d 1 Sur, is repre ent d by its Pr sidPnt and G ner 1 anager, oaquin C. Aqui o, Sr. A n o :t: hoo o:f h nve i ~on conducted by 0 t.hr <3> Reven Officers/ a iners, pur u nt to uthor y tlo. 0 4828, p oner w s nt pre- no ic da d :rt rch 7, 1990 co r�ng .it income nd u in ss tax li bil :for 1987 in the to al amount o P 9~8 1.91, ~nclud ng ncre n a here n. ln reply h r o, in t r d te April 2 ~ 1990, p tition con eat d t said nc.t Ct:> 1 ging a ong oth rs, th h as s n o1' nd~cl rod irco e o:f the can e n is no PTOJI"T b eh ~ .t'l owned by a c rtain LUC:ll L t ro- h li , 0 y r ly BCCOI by p 'l on r n col c c oun due h r f.ro the tnp oyee through p ypo �rh r, petition r rec 1ved not , es o:f e and � oge i h th er 1t Jan\l r � 14, 1991, quir'ng t to p y lh� o l oun ~ r pr nt:ing :fix d nd p rcenta e t .x s b � ye r: 1987, inc uding ncre n s thereon. hrtt s� also 24 0

RESOLUTION - C.t.A. CASE NO. 4846 - 3- i nd1catea the acceptable extra-judicial settle ent should puyment o.r the amount be made within thirty <30> days �rom receipt thereo~ <Annexes G-G-3, PP� 15-18, CTA recox�ds>. Petitione protested the- a id assessment. n a letter dat ed June 20, 1991 which �as �i.led Yith he BIR Regional 0�1ice of Butuan City on July l, 1991 <Annex H, p. 19, CT A J~t>�cords) � Subaequent.ly. on June 22, 1992, re pond~nt issue-d a W .rrant of Distraint and/or Levy vh ch was served to petitioner on Au uat 6, 1992 <Annex K, P� records>. On S . p tember 9, 1992~ petitioner filed the instant petition !or review vith this Court. While ~he petitioner avers that the asPs men is arbitrary, un:fa:~.r and unJUSt because i t. wa .ttot given a chance to subatant.i te he pro est v'th docurnen a, We ne�1ertheles find, as 1nd.icated earlier, tha the notice o:f' d&mand and assessment letter dated January 14, 1991 rtitquired petl.t:1.onEtr to pay the amo\m . sea ed within t hirty 30> days :froJil receipt thereo:f. However, f1~ed its protest only on July t, 9 1, barely more than :fiveC5) months had elapsed.

� R.ESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE RO. 4S46 - 4- Under Section 270 <now Section 229> of the Tax Code, an ass as ent may be protested administratively by filing a r~que t for reinvest ga+.ion or reconsideratjon within thirty<30) days rom receipt of the asae~~mentJ otherwise i t b com~final and unapp lable. And if the protest is denied in whol or in I the taxpayer adversely af.feoted by .he decision on he protest y ppe 1 to the Co rt of Tax Appe ls with�n tbirty(30) days from receipt o.f tiH? s id deci ion; otherwise. the de ~iaion shall beco e final, executory and dem dable. Obviovs.ly, the asse sm n in the c se bar: not h ving ben administr t�vely protes ed or contested within the thirty<30) day riod said assessment has already be ome .final nd unappeal b e <Please see Candyman Inc. vs The Com i ioner of Internal Revenue, CTA C No. 1872. January 20, 1970J The Philippine Americ n Lif'e Ineur nc Co., ~no. vs. The Hon. Co missioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 2981, June 6, 1986). It necessarily follows ther~ could not be a decis on on ct�sputed a seas en th � aybe ppealable to thi ... ourt. Purauan to Section 7Cll of Republic Act No~ 1125 wb t is revi wabl by this Cour on ppeal is the deciajon o� the Commissioner o� Intern 1 Revenue on a disputed esse ament. Thus* it has been held: 24 2

� RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4846 -5- Th 1 w conferr-ing jurisdiction on the Court of T Appeals is found in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, the pertinent p rt of which tat.s: �sec~ 7. Juri diction. - The Court of T� x App~als shall exercise exclusive jurisdict'on to rev1ew by appe 1 aa herein provided - <1> Decision of the Collector <now Commissioner' of Int rnal Revenue in cases involving di puted sseesments, refunds of inte n l R3 venue taxes, fees or othPr ch rges, rJenalties i tpoaed in r la on thereto, or other ma t rs rising und r th~ N ion 1 Internal Revenu~ Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal revenue"~ The word �Decision � in paragraph 1, Sec ion 7 of Republic Ac 1125, quoted bove~ has been interpreted to gean the dec:ie:ton o:f he Commi sioner o:f Internal Revenue em the protes~ o:f the taxpayer ag inst the asseasmen s. x x x� <Emphasis Ours> (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v � Leonardo S. Vill and the Court of Tax Appeals, 22 SCRA 3) It is thus clear beyond doubt that the decision on the request 1or reinvest'gation or reconsideration is the decision on the diepu~ed assessment vhich is ppealable to this Cc�urt.. Consequently~> i1 the assessment was not contested or protested administrative~y within thirty (30) days �rom receipt o1 the assessment which is mandated by the lav, as what happened :in the case t bar~ the taxpayer has no right to appeal. Il~j VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review filed in this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction t petitioner's costs. 24 3

\- RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4846 - G- SO ORDERED. uez n C Ly, Metro M nil, March 21, 199~. ~ cQ.~. .~ ~~ = NESTO 0. ACOSTA Pre i.ding .Judge )~ ..pDEL~~E~Ar t:-/tA J -,~~EL K. GRUBA HAKON 0 ooi t ~ :- A oc1 udge 24 4