Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 4243
REPUBLIC OF
THH PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
ABUNDIA C. h.JLISTICO,
PE:>ti tioner~ ~
Yf? r-c.;;u c.;
C.T.A. CASE NO. 4243
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
HE·? ~.; pcmd e n t.
i·~
··-
·--
-
···-
M OOO
-
M
-
-
·-
-
-
·
.. , ,..
D
E
C
I
s
I
0
N
RE.•s pon d t::~ n t.
Comrn .i. ss ion r:-?r-
o ·f
In tt-? rna 1
Revenue;>~
i n
a
motion
·filed
em
Apr·-· .i l
2 9,
1988~
~:;eeks the
dismissal o f the petition for review on the ground
j L.W .i ~:; cl i c t .ion •
He
contend s
that the
appeal is not cogni :;u::\b l e
by this CCJt l.rt s incf.:!
the
assessment
has
not
been
protested nor
con tested
pursua nt to Section 3i9-A (now Section 270 ) of the
Nation a l
Intern a l
Revenue
Cod e; hence, there could
not be any d ecision that may be appealable to this
Court as cont e mplatr=d
in SE?.ct:..i.on 7( 1 )
o ·f
RE~ publi c
Act No. 112 ~5.
We ag ree with respondent.
The pertinent facts as alleged in the petition
for-
r··eview
di s c: lo ~s <?
th .:~.t
pc-'.! t.itioner·
Abundia
C.
71
-----
DECISIUI\l
CTA CASE NO. 42 4 3
.....
/"')
·-"
,(. ..
-
Polisti c o is of legal a g e, married, and a
r esident
o ·f
Mahap 1 a g,
l....e y t:.e a nd
engag f"~d in the
ea t.er-y
an d
common carrier busi n ess at her p l ace o f residence.
On
FE•br·uar·y
.19BB,
pet:L tion er r·ece.i vt.~d the
letter of Pedro C. Aguillon, Assistant Commi ssioner
for
Col l ection
of
respondent,
d ated
January
1 2,
1988 ,
requiring
her to
pay
the total
a mount of
P8.1 , 722.25
n::.> pr-e ~; £:m ting
a ll eged
cl r?.i' ic ie~nc:y income
and
pE?r-c:: E~ nt age t,:,:·:es ·few the year··
1.98 ~~;, including
increments
t hereon.
Sai d letter a l so indic ates the
acceptabl e
t:: :·:t.r-,':l._iuc:li c:.ia l
sett. l e rm~ nt or compr·omise
penalties
in
the
tota l
amount
o f
P450.00
for
viol ation of certain Bookk ee ping Regulations.
Whi.lf?.
pet:.i t. .in n e t~
ave r··s
t ha t
said
deficien c y
assess me n t
is ill ega l
a nd
u nwarranted
I E:·:ec:u t.i. V€7!
r£:? c: on s i der- .:.~ t .ion
41,
no
re.i.nvestig,':l. t.ion
of
the
aforementioned
assessment
wa s
howev er
made
with
n~spcmdent befor-e
she appealed
to
t h is Court on
March lB , .19B8.
Obviously,
the
as !5e s s men t
n ot
h a v ing
been
prot. e~:;ted
or
c:n n t.est.E~d,
t hen~
cou ld
not
be
a
decision
o n a di s pute d assessment that may be 72
DECTS ION
CTA CASE
NO. 42 appealed ta this Court. (Candyman Incorporated vs, The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CITA Case No, L872, January B20, £27037 The Philippine American Life Insurance Company, Inc. VS. The Hon. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case WNo, SPS, June &, L786; Commercial Bank of Manila vs. The Commisstoner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. Fase, July 16, Leer, 3 Under Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. LLRS, what is reviewable by this Court on appeal is the decision of the Commissioner at Interna i Revenue oan ai disputed assesament. Thus, it has bean helds The Jaw conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Tax @&ppeals is found ain $ Sian 67) 0COUuaf0lURepublic = Aaetk L125, the pertinent park of which states:
"SEC. Fe Jura Court af Tax Appeal shall exercise exclusive appellate Jurisdiction ta review hy appeal anes herein pravided -~ ion o- The ered lector (now af Internal Revenue in gs involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal reventie axes , fees oor gather charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code ar other law ar part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue!s 73
DECTISTON ~
CTA :
The word "Decisions" in paraqrapnh Section 7 af Republic Ach LIES, quest has heen interpreted to mean the cures) ge (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Leonardo S, Villa and the Court of Tax Appeals, L-23?8s, January 2, P?P&éS, Be SCRA 3.3
Under Section FSA Cnaw Seation S70) of the
’ National Internal Revenue Code, an agse ament may he protested administratively by filing a request far recangideratian or reinvestiqatian within thirty CSO) days fram rec@ipt of the ay ex tsp eD sesmeary te otherwise, ait becomes final and unappealable. And af the prov ie deni in whole or an part, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision on the prate May aAppe alo ote the Court af Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days fram receipt af the said decision: oatherwige, the decisian shall became final, executery and demandable.
Tt 13 thus clear heyand cloubt that the decigian on the request far recansideration oar reinvestiqation ais the decision an the disputed assesament mich ois 6 C6Cappealahble toa this Court.
Cansequently, aif the assessment is not formally cantested oar proak ced administratively, as what 74
DECISION ~
CTA CASE MO, 424-5 happened ain the nase at tar, the taxpayer has no right ta appeal.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review filed in tnis case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction at petitioner's costs.
50 ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, March 29, 1989,
Onirenle
AMANTE F/AILLER
Fresidimny Judae
WE CONCUIR :
™~ COMSTANTE C. ROAGUIN Agsoclate dJrcdcaye " EX’... REY
Associate Judge
70
DECISION -
CERT IF FCAT I ON
I hereby certify that this decaisian was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals ain accardance with Section 13, Arkiecle VIII of the Constitutian.
AMANTE FILLER
Fragidifiq dJudde Court af Tax Appeals 76