Court of Tax Appeals
0~LL.L' Llh J.TR. of 1 H~ Ftliljppines Court of T A.'{ Appeal.~ or·~7.M\ Cll'Y /1\Hadeo Briones, Jr. vs. CO!VL.MISSIONER of Interl'Jal Revenue
~ll.l' llH J .tr. OF 1 H~ ftliLJPPINES
COURT OF T A.'{ APPEAl.~
or·~7.m\ Cll'Y
/1\HADEO BRIONES, JR. ,
Petitioner,
-
versus -
CO!vl.MISSIONER OF INTERl'JAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
X -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
C.T.A. CASE NO. 3348
D E C I S I 0 N
Petitioner filed a petition for review
contesti ng the legality of respo ndent' s decision
holding him liable for deficiency income tax and
business tax, inclusive of incr ements , for the
taxable year 1975.
Instead of f i ling his answer,
respondent, on August 31 , 1981, filed a motion
to dismis s said petition on the ground that the
same was filed beyond the 30-day period for appeal
pr e scribed in Section ll of Republic Act No . 1125.
The very petition for review of petitioner
alleges the fol l owing facts:
"4.
that on 15 December 198 0
respondent, through h is Revenue Regional
Director in Region 5, assessed the peti-
tioner the aggregate amount of P31,499.24
allegedly represe n ting deficiency business
taxes and increments (in the amount of
Pl5,950.60) and def i ciency income tax
and increments (in the amount of ~15,548.64).
A copy o f respondentis aforestated letter-
·
assessment is attached as Annex "A" hereof;
DECISION -
- 2 - "5.
tnat on 26 February 1981, petitioner sought reconsideration of respondent's assessment requesting opportunity to be heard and reinvest- igation of his case.
A copy of his le tter/r eques t dated February 26 , 1981 is attached as Annex "B" hereof ; "6.
t.hat respondent in a letter, dated May 13, 1981, (received by counsel on May 22, 1981) denied petitioner's reques t for reco~sideration.
A copy of the letter of Regional Director Cirilo R. Francisco is attachea as Annex "C" hereof;" And the records show that petitioner's petition for review was filed in this Court on June 23 , 1981.
(seep . l, C.T.A. records.)
Indeed, it is very clear that petitioner's peti tion for review was filed beyond the statutory period of th ~ rty days within which to appeal to this CoJrt because from May 22, 1981, the date of receipt o ~ re s pondent's decis ion, to Jun~ 23, 1981, the dat.e of filing of the appeal to this Court, a total of thirty two (32) days was consumed by petitioner.
The requirement of Section ll of Republic Act No.
112~ which reads:
"Any person, association or corpo- ration adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Cus toms or any provincial or City Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of ' 'ax Appeals within th i r ty d~ys after receipt of such deci sion or ruli .~. (Underlining s~pplied .)
- 3 - is jurisdictional and non-extendible, and non- compliance therewith renders the assessment final, executory and demandable (Republic v. Lim Tian Teng Sons & Co. , Inc., L-21731, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 584); a nd dep r i ves this Court of juris- diction to entertai the taxpayer's appeal .
(See
.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Western Pacific Corporation, L-18804, May 27, 1965, 14 SCRA 105; Filipinas Investment and Finance Corpo- ration vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-23501, Nay 16, 1967 , 20 StRA 50; Surigao Electric Co., In~. vs. Court of Tax Appeals , L-25289, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 253.)
l\CCORD I 'GLY , since the appeal of petitioner wa ~ f1 led be yond the 30-day period for appeal prescri oed i n Section ll of Republic Act No . 1125, the same is ereby dismissed for lack of juris- diction.
With costs.
SO OEDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, October 30, 1981. ........__
TANTE
. ROAQUIN ssociate Judge ~
-J
AMANTE ' ILLER
Presiding Judge
~~~/~ .
Associ a te Judg~