CTA Case No. 3818 (Decision)
RE PUBLI C nr TR PHILIPPIN ES COURT 0 , . TAX APPEAI,S CIT Y r e p rP.sl?n .:P.d b y Thll n,...,rn:"'' ' r � -~ ~ '�n 1 :i c Archb is h o p o f f"la n i.l .n J T r ' r. ': ~'"2! F'r::,!� i t i. o nt:? t- ~ - versus - C.l.A . CASE NO . 3818 COMMISSIONER OF I NTFH U l REVENUE, - Res p on d e nt . !{ - - - - - -~~ -� -~�� ~~� }~ D E ..- � �~ :r 0N '- ~ -'"' Peti t ioner OBRA PrA OE PASIG - SADYANG HARI~ repre s en t ed by th e Ro m ~ n Cat holic Archbishop of Mani la ~ from a dec ision of re s p o nd en t Commi ssionn r r1f I nt e rnal Revenue denying .i n come ta:-: f or- th cal e n ' LC1 t ye . r� .1 976 in the amo unt of P 1 9 ~ 8 41.66~ in c lu sive of in t eres t. As b or n e o u t hy t h e record~ pet itioner r-eceived fr-om r�espond e nt on June 25~ 1990~ Income Tal< Defici e ncy Asse ss ment No. 24- 1-<Y.IA-05'2l)43-76 for- P19,84.l.66~ wh ic h a r-ose o u t of r-es pond e nt ' s including in petitioner's t a x ab l e income in the su m of P26~681.56 representing the o th er half of i t s gai n on the sa 1 es of 1 ots in BarT io F'u 1o ~ Pasig P Metr-o Manila. (Par. 2, Petition e r- fo r Review.) 40R
D CIS lO I CTA CASE NO . 381R !Jn Oct o b <:>r~ 19110~ pe ti t ione r thro ugh counsel~ prote sted ti �P w-: -;r~ss ment wh ic h p rotest was 1 '7'84 1'"!2("ei.ved by pr.ot.i. 1 i n ! of"'r � on .June 20. 1984 . ( Par . 5~ Petitioner For Re v iew. ) the present pe t i t i o n fo r re v iew on J u l y :50 ~ 1 984. This court has noticed that t he decis i on C:\ppe.a led to t hi s cC"Htt t j E actu al ly si gn e d by the Reg ion.:\ l Directo r- and n n t by the Comm i ssioner of I nternal Revenue. P t e -numably in vi l?. l o f th e minimal amount i nvo v~rl t he jurisdiction of th e Reg ion a 1 Di rec: tor to di~c ide t h is t y pe of case is wit h i n h is compe t ence ~nd p roperly de l e gate d t o him b y the Commi ssicmer- o �f l n 1:erna 1 Revenue. Th is i s sue has neve r ra ised nei ther by the In fact~ bo th p artiP.s n " f .rn=>d l: o t.tw .-I n ( i;;inn nf th e r<Pgio n a l In tern al Reven ue. ConsPquent l y, for t he pu r pose of uniformi t y t h is court ad opts t he sa me numenc: lature. The issue s for resoluti o n befor e t he Cou rt are : 1. Whether this Court a cqui red j urisdiction over this c ~qe ; 409
DECISIO ~ CTA CASE NO . 3818 - 3- 2. Wt1ethP.r� t.h . r-"'n::els of l .:md in question a r-e or-dinary or� cap i 1 ,., l r~.!�:-ets . On the i ssu e o f jut- i sdic tlon ~ contends that peti ti onet- r e ceive d r-espondent ' s d enial of i protest c:-n ~fune 20 ~ 1984 b u t i t wa s only on July 30, 1984 th~t t.he petition for rev iew was fi l ed with thi s Cou r t wh ich is ten days b e yond th e thi r� t y -- d -3-y r-eql n� nr� n \� ,,~v per-iod for a ppeal~ hPncP t il t s Cou r t h~<:' tl ''Y' ,;H : qtsired jur-isdiction over this C<"S"! br?c.-~�J �:;p t.h r'! d ew; ";.i r.Jn nf t: hP Comm i s sioner of I n t e r � n;:~ l I<PVeflUP. nn f�.t �0 J�r- n tt>st of p et i t i on er ha s become f in ;;~. l and e:~ E=" r.� J t o r y. 11-Je a gr-ee . The peU t i nnrn -f rJr r c:;-v i .ew IJ-JAS f i l ed out of t .i. me. Resp ondent 's final d~risi on da ted May 23 ~ 1 984 denyl.ng the p et i t i oner- 's rwo te s t~ was a dm i ttedly r eceive d by pr~ t.i ti.n n rt C' " .r,_l ' lP ? O, 1.98 4. (See Pti\ r. ~3 , F'etiti.on �fo r Rr?vin�'� p � . , , C.T.(~. reco rd!'! . ) The p e t i t _j onPr for- t""Pv j "'' 1 �� f i. 1 E~d hy t he pet � tioner- on July 30, 1984, for �t:y days after- its r-eceipt of r-espon d ent ' s f inal d ecision. Clearly, t h e herein p e t ition f or- r- ev iew was f i l ed beyond the statutory p er-iod o �f th i r- ty day s rr�escr-i bed in Sect i on 11 of Republi c Act No. 11 2~. Acc or-d i ng l y~ t hi s Court n o longer has j u r-isdict ion to entertain and deter-mine 410
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3818 the con,.. ec tness f t h r:> :'""""'F.�s srnen 1: and doe s not have to pa s s upon he ~ e c and iss ue raised by the r espondent. WHEREF R�, the p t t.ion f ar revi w is hereby dismiss d , i h o R aQ ins p i tio n r. 90 Ut tERE!O. Q t~"'l. r; C ty , Mr> 1 t n 11 oflnil t ~ S . pt mber 26~ 199 1. c.. ~~ (< .. ~.~"� �RNESTO D. ACOSTA A~nsoc:iate Judge WE CONCUR1 ~~ tf4�t~ - ... CO~~A <J~ef C. fUJl\OtlJN / {)c; s o r: 1. ate , lt.l r1q r,� CER.'TJ' I hereby cert 1.fy that thiE decision was reached a fter due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax App R~ls in accordance with Section 13~ Ar t icle VII T of Presiding Court of Ta)( 41.1
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.