Brpobl Es of the Rullippinrs Court of Tax Appeals Qurlou NTT /Satlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. ~ Commissioner of Internal y 22/, et al.

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:ponde 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, otherwise payment after that, or on Janu~ry 21, 1975, alleged in this cas e ,will be conside r e d a late payment 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 may 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 -~----~------------~- - --· ...

c .

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.

WE CONCUR:

~~·/

AMANTE

LLER

Pr esidi g Judge 381 --·

• ROAQUIN

Associate Judge