Corporacion Dr PP. Agustinos vs. CTA Cade No, et al.

Decision -

CTA CASB NO, 19735 setipt of these letters. — (4 perusal of the recerds shows that respondent subsitted proof consisting ef the testimony in open court of the mailing clerk that the abeve-aentioned letter-decision of Jovember 15, 1965 was seat by registered mail to petitioner. In the cross exan- ination, however, it appeared that the mailing Clerk besed bis testimony on the entry ond notations in the mailing book ef the Bureau of Internal Reve- nue. No proof was presented by respomfent that pe- titioner dic in fact receive said letter-decision. The usual return earéd of registered mail was not preseated in evidence and there is no proof that the postmaster ectuslly received the mail and sent notice thereof to petitioner ané thet the latter failed to claim the same, which are the best evi- G@enee of service in registered mail, (Bection 10, Rule 13, Seles of Court.) )

(18 the ¢ase of Jongalo ». Nava ¥. Comm. of Int. Rev. (G.R. Ho. 1-18470, Jan. 30, 1965), the Supreme Court refuse! to give probative Vajue to « gimilar recor’ of sells of the Mwresas ef Internal Sevenue, although the clerk, whose duty 1t wat to send the office mall end keep the record beck of letters to taxpayers, todk the - 156 ——_--~—- i i el ee ee

DECISION ~

CTA CASE HO. 1735 5 stand but however adwitted that all he corld say was that there appeared in his recoré book a note that a letter to a texpayer was mailed by ) special delivery on @ specified Aste. We followed thie rule in the case of “argarita Soriano de 5. de Vicufia, et al., vo Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case Noe 1517, and naturally, we _ will apply the said rule te this case by, refusing to give persuasive weight to the testimeny of the mailing elerk. ) Said the Supreme Court in the aforesaid lleva cases.

While we have held that an assessment is made when sent within the prescribed period, even if ree ceived by the taxpayer after its expiration (Coll. of Int. eve vs Sautista, b-12259 and 122599, May 27, 1959), this ruling makes it the more deoaeethve that the release, eatling, payer eg be’ at the merey of the revenue officers, without edequste protection or defense.

The decision on 2 orotest is not lees vitel to the texpayer than an arsesseent for it serks the comnencerent of the period for appeal to the courts, The taxpayer shovld not be deprived of 4 his day in court by a lex rule with respect to notice of the decision.

r 157

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 1735 as the Court iv oot persuaded tnaat tne letter-deeision of cesponient dated Jovenber 15, 1965 was actually received b; petitioner, it can aot conéidver the sais letter-decision as the final and appealable desisioa ‘hat starte the running of the 30-day period fer appeel to this court. This 30-day period should be counted frem peti- tioner's Fecelpt of the summons in Civil Case io. 144726 of the City Court of Manila for collection. As held in Republic v. iim ‘ian Teng, 0.—. NO. L=21731, March 31, 1966, the filing of such action at the instance of the commissioner is equivalent te e Genial of the tuxpayer's request for reton- Siderution, aud the taxpayer's remedy is to appeal te the Court of Lax Appeals within ju deys from the date thet ue is sotified of such actin, From January 25, 1966, the date of receipt by petitioner of the judicial sumuons, to February 16, 1966, the date of the filing of tue present petition for review, less than thirty (30) Gays had @lepsed, Guch veing the case, we rule tust this Court has jurisdiction to entertaio the pre- sent appeal. | .

aecens Jague - Petitioner claics thet respenient*s right to issue the aforesaid aSsesssents and to ecllect tus alleged deficiency income taxes for 1958 and 1959 » 4158

DECISIOGN -

CTA CAS2 BO. 1735 7 had lapsed and preseribed. | ( The undisputed facts in the cease at ber ares

(1) that petitioner filed its income tax returns for 1958 on February 23, 1959, ant for 1999, on Mareb 18, 1960; and (2) that petitioner received the tvo letters of assessment made by respondent, both dated April 13, 1965, on April 19, 1965. leed- less to say, from February 23, 195), the date peti- tioner filed ite income tax return for the year 1958, to April 13, 1965, the date of the assess @ent, more than five (5) years had elapred. ence, respondent's right to assess the deficiency im come tax for said year hed alresdy prescribed when the afsesement was wade. )

(nent the year 195%, petitioner controverts respondent's assesement dated April 13, 1965 claiu- ing thet said assessment aust Rave been antedated corsidering thet for the yesr 1965, the calendar shows that Holy week of sala yoar corfes pomed to Aprdl 12 Gilely Monday) to April 18 (saster gua- Gay) and said letter appears to have been made on Holy Tuesday (Aprii 13), barely two Gays (rom the Jest duy of tae Jive-year perliou lor assessment of the 1959 Ansome tax of petitioner. | ( This Court takes judiciel noties of the fect that the only wo rksag days Guring every lloly Week are Holy Nonday, Uoly Tuesday and Holy vednesday.

159

DRCISTON -

CTA CABR NO, 4735 Holy Mom'ay of 1965 was April 12, and ‘oly Jed- nesday wes April 14%. Since the arsessment ws dated April 13, it must seve been mailed on or before April th, 1965, the lest working dsy during the “oly Week of seid year considering that peti- 4 tioner received it during the first working dey of the following wake Petitianer maintsine that it hed slready paid the corresponding Geficiency income tax for 199° ae per assessment iseved by respomient, hence further collection of sdditional f@eficiency in~ come tex is improper and illeyele ve find this pretension to be without serit. in the case of dpe v. Comutesioner of Interne! “evenue, CePA. Cave “oe 676, Set. 25, 1961, this Court saids ( on the question whether or not respondent is pernuitted to cake a reassessment of the income tax due from a r, the rule is well Pe agp that A a oa such anime S power proceeds from the a authority conferred vpon hin Sin to celleet all ph Yin a ag Prec. Ay revente taxes arm! te enforee all laws in relation thereto. (ee. 3, ot. 8 National Irterral Nevenue te the Commissioner of In- npr! | Revenue ts precluded from making an assesament- t the one made on the besis of the taxpayer's return, the Government would be et the orrey of the tax who con Getermine whet income to report and how auch to kd in a.

> 160

PRCIGION ~

CT) ChE OO. 2935 9 In Collector v. Satanges Transportation Computiy, «8. Ho, 19692, January 6, 1950, the Suprewe Court sei4;

-« « « that the tux laws provide for a preseriptive period withia woich the tax collectors make assesssents and reassessments ia order to collec’ ull the taxes due to the Government, and that if the Col- lector of Internal Sevenue is aot allowed to amend his assessment be- fore the Court of Tax Appeals, and Since he Gay Bake 4 subsequent re- assesssent te collect eiditional sam withia the same subject of hls orig- inal assessment, provided it is done within the preseriptive period, ibind Issue - Waving upheld respondent's right to reassess and collect the deficiency incowe tax from petie tiover, we will now 4ea) with the lest lesue raised by petitioner, that ic, whether petitioner is lable for the deficiency income tex for 1959.

The record shows thet during the tris] of - this ease, petitioner Mmited its evicence to its defense of prereription, It atéueeé no evidenee on the correctness of ths adsestwents, subject of this case, Since there ie no evidence to show that the assessment for 1959 is unjustified, we heve no alternative bat to uphold responient's sete asserscent Watch ic itemined ae follows:

_ 164

DECISION «

CTA CASE WO. 1735 40

IL

Net income disclosed by the return as A pad original —_ pevenstes eRe P 16,273.00 | llowable deductions afiditional income tte $8215 Net income per reinvestiga- tion Amount subject to tax a Inge imoure slcensy assereed — Sngkena a y asses f ve M0. o. int. fre wilese * ee oe TAX weig/es Incr IBuE be taZB Sas It is @ well-settled rule that it is incum- bent upon the taxpayer to shew elearly that the tax assessment is erroneous in order to be relieved from it. (Collector of Int. Kev. v. Bohol land Transportation Co. & Bohol Land Transportation vy. Collector of Int. “evs, Gef. Nos. 1-13099 and L- 13462, April 29, 1960.) This is besed on the eonsistent doctrine in taxation that the assess- ment of responéent Commissioner of Internal Revenve 4s nrige facie correct and the burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to overcome the presumption of correctness thereof. ({anila Rafiread Co. v. Coll. of Customs, 52 Phil. 950; Jose fepine v. Comm. of Int. Reve, CTA Case Sos 1532, Jan. 21, 19693 Con- gregacion de ls Mieston ée San Vicente de Paul v. Comme of Int. Neve, CTA Case No. 1468, May 19,

DECIBION -

CTA CABT WO, 1735 11 1969.) Sinee the petitioner has not complied with its burfen of proof we have to abide by the pra- sumption ef correctness ef the respondent's assess- aent. | WERDRFORN, the decision appealed fron with respect to the:(1) 1958 deficiency income tax is reversed (2) 1959 deficiency incoue tax is affirmed anf petitioner is hereby ordered to pey the sua of 3,705.46, together with the eorres- ponding interest and surcharge incident to the @elinqueney as provided for under Section 51(e) of the Tax Code, os mended by Republic Act 2343.

(60 CRUERED. .

Guenon City, May 29, 1970.

fn. Fh RAMOH L. AVANCBLA

Associate Juége

WE CONCUR:

Ce lial vetlel epeccies ( ANISLAO BR. ALVAREK associate Judge