CTA Case No. 1659 (Resolution)

r � R f.'PTT TIC OF TR~ PHT .I ' ;��s , c u h r r _\: 1~d L � 1 QuLo~ .N ~u Y MANUFAC Tt.i'RER ' S BA ilK & TRUST C.T.A. CASE C~PAriT as trustee for GeM Trust Plans , NO. 1659 Petitioner, - versus - THE COMMISSIONER OF I NTERNAL REVEr-IDE, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - -- -X RESOLUTION The petitioner filed on July 2, 1965 a "Petition For Review, 11 praying for the refund of the sum of �7 ,131.50 , representing alleged income tax illegally assessed and collected by the respondent. On August 18, 1965, an answer was filed by the respondent, setting forth as special and affirmative defenses , among others, the following: (1) that this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case,;' and (2) that the instant petition for review states no gause of action. On September 18, 1965, pursuant to respondent's motion dated August 23, 1965, this Court held a pre- liminary hearing on the issues raised by the respon- dent in his special and affirmative defenses, during which, both parties did not introduce evidence in support of their respective stand, except the claim for refund dated July 1, 1965 (Exh. 11 lu for respon- dent, p. 2, BIR rec.), which petitioner filed with the ~ommissio.ner of Internal Revenue on July 2, 1965. The questions to be considered in this incident are: (1) Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE Nb . 1659 - 2- to entertain the present appeal; and in the affirmative, {2) whether or not the petition states a cause of' action against the respondent. In resolving the first issue in the negative, we wish to point out that the jurisdiction of this Court over a case can not be presumed. Section 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules of' Court of' Tax Appeals clearly pro- vides that the 11Petition For Review" shall contain allegations showing jurisdiction in the court, x x x." In the present case, petitioner did not alle ge in its petition for refund the date wp~n it paig the alleged sum of �7 ,131. 50 ; neither did it present any evidence to establish the same during the hearing. Therefore, we have no way of' determining whether or not the present action was filed within the two-year period required by Section 306 of the National Internal Reve- ! nue Code. We believe and so hold that the failure of' petitioner to allege and prove this jurisdictional fact is fatal to its suit for refund. For the same reason, i r becomes inevitable for us to declare that ition for review states no cau~of action . I 1ISES CO SIDERED, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, November 29, 1965. JL,J.Jt-/51( TEoF~O -D."REYES , SR . Presiding Judge Q~' e A J~ - ~ _OG - ROMAN M. UMALI Judge Associate Judge