Republic of Hi: Fjulippinu Court of T Aj' Appeals Quezon Cl'N' Dataprep 1 Inc. vs. Comhissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3600 2 - above the amount sought to be refunded as shown in the income tax returns for the said taxable ye:ars

(Annexes

11 A 11 and "B

11 ) 1. that it is not expected to realize profit for the current year of business operations ; that the tax \vi thheld and de,ducted, herein sought to be refunded , was duly declared as part of petitioner ' s gross income for the years aforementioned ; that the fact of withholdings was duly receipted by its payors as evinced by copies of the: I ncome Tax Receipts (BIR Form No . 17 43) ;. and , to hedge against the running of the statutory period of limitation petitioner filed t his petition on March ~1, 1983 .

It does appear in the instant ~ase that peti- tioner ' s Income Tax Re~urns for the fiscal years ended March 31 , 1981 and March 31, 1982 f airly dis- c:lose losses inc:urred over and above the taxable .

amount sought to be r efunded (Exhs . "A" and "B") ; .• that its various customers (Exh . "C") .withheld and deducted amounts on petitioner ' s i ncome as covered by such requisite statement or certification pur- suant to Revenue Regulations No. 13-78 as amended by Revenue Regulations No . 6-79 aggregating the sum of il4:54 ,587 .86 e (Exhs . "D", "D-~ 11 and "D-2" ; '!E" , "E-1" and "E-2"; "F" ; "G"; "H"; "I" ; "J"; "K" ; "L"; "M" ; "N" ; "0 11 ;

"P"; "Q"; "R" , "R-1"; "S" , "T" , _, · 80

"T-·1" •

.

I

DECISION =

"U", "U-=L" and "U-2"; "V" and "V-1"; "W"; "X"3Z "Y"; "2"; "AA"; "BB"; "CC", "CC-1" to "CC=4"; "DD", "DD-1" to "DD-9"; "EE"; "FF", "FF-1" to "FF-4"; "GG", "GG-1" to 'GG-20"; "HH"; "II"; "Jd"; "KK"; "LL"; "MM"; "MN", "MN-1 to "MN-11"; "OO", "OO-1"; "PP"; "QQ"; "RR"; "Ss", "SS-1" to "SS-7"; "TT", "TT-1" to "TT-5"; "UU"; "VV"; "WW"; "XX"; "YY"; "ZZ" and "ZZ-1"; "AB", "AB-1" to “AB-8"; "AC", "AC-1" to "AC-9"; "AD", "AD=1" ‘to "AD-13"; "AE"; "AF"; "AG"; "AH"; "AI"; "AJ"; "AK"; "AL"; "AM"; "AN"; "AO"; "AP", "AP-L" to "AP-8"; "AQ", "AQ-1" to "AQ-10"; "AR", “AR=L" and "AR=2"; "AS"; "AT", "AT=-1" to "“AT=3"; "AU"; "Av", "AV-L" and "AV-2"; "AW"; "AX"; "AY"; "AZ" and "AZ-1"; "BA"; "BC", "BC-1" to "BC-9"3; "BD", "BD-1" to ‘'BD-11"; and "BE").

It does not appear that respondent disputes the relatively simple material facts except that the same are as yet to be verified but takes issue on the refundability of the amounts withheld on banks' ine terest (Exhs. "U", "U-1" and "U-2"; "Z"; "AA"; "BB"; "CO", "CC=1L" to "CC=4"3; "GG=10 to "GG-20"; "II"; "NN", "NN=-1" to "NN=-11"; "yy"; "AB", "AB=1" to "AB-8"; "AD", "AD-1" to "AD-13"; "AE"; "AQ", "AQ=-1" to AQ-10"; "BC", "BC-1" to "BC-9"; "BD", "BD-1" to "BD-11") on the ground that under P.D. No. 1739 payment of interest is final on bank deposits Bie therefore not creditable, Respondent poses no objection however in having the - 81

- 4 - case submitted for decision on the basis of peti- tioner ' ~ evidence and the pleadings .

The question here presented is whether, under the circumstances, petitioner has established a valid claim to a refund of the taxes withheld and deducted but which towards the end of the hearing t he veri- fication thereof seems dawdled over minutiae. The records makes i t clear that petitioner ' s income tax returns for the taxable years in question have shown losses .

Respondent has not i ssued any deficiency assessment nor disputed the correctness thereof.

The requisite statement or certification of the: amounts withheld and deducted by petitioner ' s customers thru which the respondent collected the taxes and upon which tapked the claim for refund could furnish the satisfaction of definite resolution . Respondent points to no factual error nor superflu- i ties which need be abridged except f9r the non credit·· ability of taxes on bank interest payments as earlier pointed out.

As thus shown the basis of the claim is not short of specific support in terms of tract- able data openly laid and fully disclosed for any l egitimate analysis, doubt and objection but action

I

thereon appears consigned in a limbo of lingering ..

verification to date.

We see no re:ason and none is vouchsafed why a simple case , where fact and fabri- cation are no longer indistinguishable, should remain 1

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3600 .

- .5 - curiously unperturbed. It may be necessary to r epeat what this Court said in what so plainly apply to the case at bar that , "But as should be expected, the action could be maintained on the basis of the plead- ings, admission and affidaviL of the parties which neither provokes any unsett.ling questions nor involves material factual issues genuinely in dispute . The administrative machinery or process empl oyed on ~he right to the claim seems to have moved barely at idling speed.

To be relatively quiescent for some four ( 4) .Years on a claim of such a simple nature and not so considerable a stake which no longer i ncites controversy nor excites a queasy sense of expectation , creates but an unwarranted bureaucratic inertia of inaction.

Readily a legal conclusion can be safely reached .

Petitioner or any similarly circumstanced t axpayer for that matter deserves a measure of fair dealing in a more expeditous and competently resportsive act i on . "

(Commonwealth Pacific Consultants, Ltd., v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No . 2953, May 15, 1982) ~ The circumstances obta i ning in the case at bar c6mpel us to sustain the t enability of petitioner ' s right to the refund based on the evidence ·and pleadings o Moreover, this Court cannot coyly acquiesce to labor in chronic curiosity and thus serve as a "wailing 83 - 6 wall" for the petitioner's predicament to the suffer- ance of that "well known policy of the c ourt to expedite the disposal of cases to prevent t heir dockets from being clogged, and it is incumbent upon the parties to take the initiative in the prompt dis- posal of cases as a duty to themselves, to the court and to the public i n general."

(Masiglat v. Mayor of Pasay, 104 Phil. 319 cited in 101 SCRA 644) ~ And, i f "taxes are the lifeblood of government and their prompt collection and certain availability ar e an i mperious ne ed" and therefore, "must be p a id immediately without delay", in the same token and for reasons deemed hardly less i mperative and important, a taxpayer is equally entitled to a definite resolve on a claim l ikewise responsive to his needs.

Peti-

tioner in the case at bar deserves no different treat- ment .

In a manner of speaking , need we kill the goose prematurely by lapses of fairnes~? We conclude and t his is all we need decide that petitioner has fared consistent with the requirements of l aw and regulat i ons in establishing i ts right to the c laim, except the tax withheld on bank interest which shall be deducted from the amount sought to be refunded as validiy .objected by the respondent .

WHEREFORE, as above-qual i fied, respondent i s 84 1 1

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3600 .

- 7 - hereby ordered to grant the r efund to t he petitioner wi t hout pronouncement as to costs.

WE CONCUR:

,A

·• ROAQUIN

e Jupge .

85