CTA Case No. 3452 (Decision)

f. \l.,.ll8U� ; 01' Tlllt HHLlPP~ COUP..'f Of TAX ~!;)PE.ALI '"~ t:f..l)lt! Ol"r'Y / ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOP~-1ENT CORPORATION 1 Petitioner, - versus - C . T. A. CASE NO. 34~2 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE VENUE, Responde nt . X- - - - - ------X DEC I S I 0 N This is an appe al from the decision of respondent Commissioner of Internal Rev e n u e denying petitione r's protest on the assessment of the form e r ~hich assessed ag,ainst and demand e d from the latter the sum of Pl58,602.14 as 25% penalty for late payme nt of the ad valorem taxe s due for the four t h quarte r of 1974, plus compromise penalty of P300.00, i n violation of Se ction 245, penaliz~d und e r Section 248 , both of the Tax Cod e , as amended. It. appears that after May 24 , 1977, p e�t .i t .ione:r received from respondent Commi s sioner an a s sessme:nt date d April 29, 1977, and d emanded from petitioner th e sum of 1H58,602.14 a s 25 % pe nalty assessment f o r late payme nt of ad� valorem taxes due for the lastt. quart er of 1974, plus ~300.00 compromise penalty . as aforesaid. (p. 5, BIR rec .) Peti t .ioner protested the assessment on June 9, 1977 alleging payment within the prescribed period 3 ~ .. ( l

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3452 - 2- {Exh. 2, p. 7, BIR rec.) but. which was denied by respondent and the deni a l was received by pe�t it. ioner only on April 16, 1982. On April 19, 1983, the decision of res:pond e nt:. Commissioner denying1 the pr.otest was appealed to this Court praying that the penalty assessment and compro- mise penalty be cancelled � in its favor. Under the law , the payment of the ad valorem tax with respect to the gross output for the 4th quarter of 1974, should be paid on o r before January 20, 1975, otherwis e payment after that, or on Janu~ry 21, 1975, alleged in this ca s e ,w ill be consid e r e d a late payme nt in violation of Section 245 of the Tax Code and subject to a penalty tax o f 25 %. In the instant case, did pe titioner pay the ad valorem tax for the 4th quarter of 1975 on time, or on January 20, 1975, or was it paid one day later, or on January 21 , 1975, for which it ma y then properly be subject to a 25% penalty tax as assessed? During the hearing, it was shown by respondent that the payment of the ad valorem taxes was made on January 21, 1972 per the report of collection (Exh. 7, p. 32 , CTA rec.) of Nicasio D. San Juan, Revenue . Collector of� Toledo City for the period from January 1 to January 31, 1975, but the duplicate copy of the

~--------------------- - DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3452 - 3- Official Receipt No . 2383403 of payment on file in the lat.t:e r. 's office is illegible (see Exh . 6-A, p. 49, BIR rec.) ~ Petitioner, however , presented as its evidence , the original Official Receipt No. 2383403 F (Exh. D and H, pp. 19, 18, CTA rec.) .which will s how that the payment of the ad valorem tax in question was made on January 20, 1975 and a list showing the payment of the ad valorem tax u~d er O.R. No . 2383503 C was shown to have been made on January 20, 1975. (Exhs. B, B-1 and B-2, pp. 20-21, CTA rec.) This Exhibit B above is the exact xerox copy of the ori~inal evidence presented and admitted as Exhibit L in CTA Case No. 28 42, entitled " l\ tlas Consolidated Mining. and Development Corp . vs. Commissioner of Internal Reve nue" already decided by this Court. Finally, petitioner presented a certificate issued by Nicasio D. San Juan, the said Revenue Collector of Toledo City, dated June 7, 1977 (Exh. C, p. 23, CTA rec.) ~ certifying that the ad valor e m tax in question in t he amount of P634 , 408.58 was paid on Januar~ 20, 1975 under Official Receipt No. 2383403 , and this certificate was issued for the pur pose of "x. x x clarification on the date of the issuanc e of the said official receipt" 'Lftalic.s our.�.7 and which proves the fact of payment. thereof on time. Respondent , on his end , never presented any evidence t~ ove r whelm or contradict the satisfactory and . 330

- -- � ... -~----~------------~- DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3452 - 4- convincing evidenc e presented by petitioner that the said payment of ad valorem tax has in fact been made on time on January 20 , 1975. If it were t ue that the ad valor em tax was paid on January 21, 1983 , as previously determined by r espondent, he could have present.ed readily his Revenue Collector of To:Jfflo City 1 Nicasio D. San Juan, as his witness, to r enege his official certification dated June 7, 1977. Consequently, it is therefore our opinion and we so hold that petitioner is not liable to pay a 25 % penalty tax of ~158 ,60 2.14 and ~300.~0 as corn- promise penalty . WHEREFORE , the decision of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue appea led from i s he reby rever s ed. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, Dece r 22, 1983. --� � ROAQUIN Associate Judge WE CONCUR: ~~�/ AMANTE LLER Pr esidi g Judge 38 1 c.