CTA Case No. 5155 (Resolution)

� L REPla..tC IF" n� PHILIPPIIES COURT IF TAX APPEALS QtEZOtt CITV PHIIIIMA PRO'ERTV HOLDINGS CORPORATIOtt� - vtrrsus - C. T.A. CASE t�J. 5155 ;#& REVENI.E, COMJSSIOMER IF INTERNAL Pro�ulgat�d � Rtrapondtrnt. - - - - . - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JU-L -0-71-99-5 - - - RESOLUTION Btrfortr Us is a Motion to Oisaias filed by rtrspondtrnt on Dtrceabtrl~ lit, l991t on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizanctr of the ptrtition because to Section 7Cl) of Rtrpublic Act 1125. Ptrtitioner, in its opposition to thtr Motion to asstrssaents through a ptrtition filtrd in this Court indicates that it is alrtrady disputing th��� Thtr conttrntion of� thtr ptrtitionttr is patttntly 7(1) of Rttpublic Act 1125 rtrftrr to thtr prottrsts filed by ta>epay�rs in thtr adainiatrativtr ll'vtrl and not to this appellat � com~t. This. court acquires jurisdiction only . '�

� RESOLUTION - C.T.A. Case No. SlS5 2- decision on th� pl~otest lodgerd in htrr offictr �nd this decision is challenged via a petition for rvview. The WOl"'d "dJt>cision" in paragJ"aph l, Section 7 of Republic Act 1125, quotvd above, has been interpreted to �ean the decision of the Coaai~sioner of Internal Rvvenue on th� prot est of thf.> agi'inst thv <Coa�issioner of Internal Revvnue vs. Vtlla ZZ SCRA 3). Section 7(0 of Republic Act 1125 pl"'Ovide& as. follows: Sec. 7 Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exf.>rCtse ~xclusivv appellate JUrisdiction to revif.>w by appeal, as herein provided Cl) Decision of the Coa�isstonf.>r of lnternal Revenue in cases 1nvolving disputed assess�ents, refunds of internal revenu� taxes, fe�s or other charges, penalties iaposed in relation thereto, or other �atters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law OJ" part of law adaini ster�d by th� ~ureau of Internal Rev�nue. Petitioner alleges that it did not receive the assessaents issued by the respondent but inst ad received a collection letter fro� the ~JR for a leged inco�e and docuaentary staap tax defici ncy on S�pteaber 1, 1994. However, p titioner goes on to s y that it was only on Sept eaber 9, 19'94 that it obt ined copies of assess��nt notices Cpal"'agraphs 4.0 and G.O of the pet it ion>. Be it noted that petitioner ad�1ts having received copie of the asses&aent on Septeaber '9, 1'994 424

-.it:LUTI C. T. � C. � 3- ., fi L-j that copi s, ..... 1-. 1d n ... SP-ct i on 229 of th~ aM Codv providvs, thusJ 9 c. 229 P 1u~rsting o' assrss�rnt. - When th ~ogai.si onPr of 1 . r al Revenue or his d\tl y authorized rvpresen-tat i VE' 1 nds thc.t proper taMes should be assessed, he shall first nptiry the t�~payer of his findings, within a pwr1od to be prescribed by i�pl�� r.ting r~tgulations, ~h� ta~oayer shall be ~equired t o r�~rond to said notice. Jf the t Hpay r f~il to respond, thlt co��ission�r shall issu� an assessawnt based on his fin~ings. Such a ses ��nt aay b� prot�sted ad�ini tratively by filing req~�~t for reconsideration or reinv�stig tion in such for� and �ann�r as � y be presct~i bed t�y i pl � �nt i ng ,..egulations w1th1n thirty <30) days fro� receipt of the assessaent; otherwise, the assess�ent sh 11 becoae final and unappealable. If the protest is denied in whole or part, the individual, association or corpo�~ tioT adversely affected by the decision on the protest aay appeal to the Court of TaH Appeals within thirty C30) days fro� J"eceipt of the said decision; otherwise, the d cJsion shaAl beca�e fin 1, ~Mecutory and de�andable. <as insrrtrd by Pri>s. Drc,.�rr No.. 173.. J 1~~ rl y the respondent, this Court has no juri~diction C Y '' etit ion for review. Th �e ,;:.r. pl~ elucidated this point clearly in 425

1�.... � RESOLUTION - C.T.A. Case No. 5155 - 4- Co��issioner of Internal Revenue vs. Villa 22 SCRA 3 when it l~ul ed., thus; Since in the instant case the taxpayer appealed fro� the assess�ent of the Co��issioner of Internal Revenue without previously contesting the sa�e, the appeal was pre t tre and the Co\rt of Ta~ Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain said appeal. For, as stat -d, the jurisdJc on o the Ta Court i~ to review by appeal decisions of the Com�issioner of Internal Revenue on dJsputed assess�ents. The Tax Court is a court of special jurisdiction. As such, it can take cognizance only of such �atters as are clearly within its j1..1ri sdi ct ion. WI-EREFORE, in view of the ' fol~egoing, this case is heJ~eby DISJIJISSED foJ1 lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ce2-.A/t'-' u;;- Q \l yb- K. GRUBA ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Judge ~�~~~ RAM 0. DE V Associate Ju ge 426,