CTA Case No. 2238 (Resolution)

~~~ I" U hLIC OF THE PBILIPI"INEI COURT OF TAX APPEALI . QU~N CITY RURAL BANK OF GRACE PARK, C. T.A. CASE No. 2238 INC., Petitioner, - versus - C01-IMISS I ONER OF INTERNAL. P..EVENUE, Respqndent. X X---~------ � - RESOLUTION This refers to respond~nt � s motion, dated June 10, 1971, seeking the dismissal of .the instant petition for review on the ground that it was instituted beyond 30 days from receipt of the decision of respondent denying petitioner's claim for refund; hence, this Court, under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same. The petition for review alleges that on April 15, 1969, petitioner , a rural bank created under Republic Act No . 720, as amended, paid under protest the amount of ~1,397.08, as corporate income tax for the year 1968; that a day thereafter, or on April 16, 1969, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent requesting refund of the tax paid on the ground that it is exempt from the pay- ment of income tax under the provisions of Republic Act No. 720, as amended; and that it filed with this Court the instant petition for review inasmuch as the 2-year period prescribed by lawl was about to expire without respondent having acted on its claim for refund . ---------- lsection 306, National Internal Revenue Code .

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE No. 2238 - 2- In seeking the dismissal of the instant appeal, re- spondent, however, avers that he had already rendered a decision on petitioner's claim for refund but the same, despite d~e receipt thereof by petitioner, was not sea- sonably appealed to this Court pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. The issues posed for our resol~tion are~ (a) whe- ther or not respondent has rendered a decision on peti- tioner's claim for refund; and in the affirmative, (b) whether or not the said decision was appealed to this Court within the period provided for by law. Section 11 of Rep~blic Act No. 1125, which is the law applicable to the case at bar, provides in part as follows: � SEC . 11. Who maY appea1� eff eocr t~of appea1�- Aal person, association poration adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Collector of C~stoms or any provincial or lceityanBaopaprdeaol finAstsheessmCoenutrt Appeals maY fi of Tax Appea1s within thirty days after the receipt of s~ch decision or ruling . x x x (Emphasis supplied.) D~ring the hearing of this incident, respondent add~ced oral and documentary evidence to prove that a decision had been rendered on petitioner's claim for refund and that petitioner failed to appeal the same to this Court within the period provided in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. Respondent presented Marcial Pons, Jr. of the General Service Division, Burea~ of Internal Revenue,

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE No. 2238 who testified2 that he is the custodian of record of . mailing and is in charge of� receiving, sending andre- cording of mails; that he received, for mailing, a let- ter of r~spondent, dated �~y 29, 1970, denying peti- tioner's claim for refund aDd recorded the gist thereof in his record book (Exhs. 1 & 1-A); that he stamped the said letter and sent it by registered mail with return cavd, s _.1de c by Registry Receipt No. 76291 (Exhs. 3 & 3-A); that the addressee, petitioner herein, actual- ly received the letter of respondent on July 18, 1970, through one of its employees, as shown bya (a) the Re- gistry Return Receipt (Exh. ~, p. 7, BIR rec.; Exhs. 5 & 5-A) and (b) certification by the Postmaster of Calo- ocan City Post Office that Registered Letter No. 76291 was delivered and received by petitioner's representa- tive, Espenilia Abella Florentino (Exh. 6, P� 21, BIR rec.). The facts established above, and to which no va- lid objection was interRosed by petitioner, indubitably show that, on May 29, 1970, a decision was rendered by respondent on petitioner's claim for refund and the same was received by the latter on July 18, 1970. Applying Section 11 of Republ~c Act No. 1125, petitioner had only 30 days from receipt of sai4 decision, or until August 17, 1970, within which to perfect its appeal to this Court. However, petitioner interposed its appeal to 2Hearings of September 25 and October 2, 1971.

RESOLUTION .- ' -~ - CTA CASE No . 2238 ' this Court only on Marc~ 20 , 1971, or more than 8 months after it receiv~d the decision on its claim for refund . Obviously, the appeal has been filed beyond the 30- day , period set by law, and this Court ha�S no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It has been held that "x x ~ where payment has al- ready been made and the taxpayer is merely asking for its refund, he must first file with the (Commissioner) of Internal Revenue a claim for refund before taking the matter to the Court, as required by section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code and that appeals from de- cisions or rulings of the (Commissioner) of Internal Re- venue to the Court of Tax Appeals must alwaYs be perfected within 30 daYs after the receipt of th.e decision or ruling that is being appealed , as required by Section 11 of Re- public Act No , 1125. 11 (Johnston Lumber Co ., Inc . vs. Court of �Tax Appeals , 101 Phil , 151; see also Gibbs vs. Coll. of Int , ReV o, �107 Ptlll o 232 . ) IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the herein appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. . .. ,SO ORDERED � Quezon City, October 30; 1971. I CONCURs ROMAN M. UMALI .Presiding Judge L 1/L._� RAMON L. AVANCENA Associate Judge Associate Judge Estanislao R. Alvarez did not take part.