Chin v. Bureau of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8989. August 15, 2019.] For: Assessment FLORENTON M. CHIN , petitioner , vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE/REVENUE REGION NO. 16/REVENUE DISTRICT NO. 98, CAGAYAN DE ORO , respondents . DECISION MINDARO-GRULLA , J p : Submitted for decision on September 11, 2018 is a Petition for Review filed by Florenton M. Chin on February 20, 2015, pursuant to Section 7 (a) (1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, otherwise known as "An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals," as amended, 1 as well as Rule 4, Section 3 (a) (1), 2 in relation to Rule 8, Section 4 (a), 3 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). Petitioner seeks to annul the assessment of deficiency income tax amounting to P4,345,892.79 imposed by the respondent on the petitioner for the year 2006. HTcADC Petitioner Florenton M. Chin is of legal age, a Filipino citizen, married and a resident of Capistrano-Pacana Sts., c/o Palace Lodge, 9000 Cagayan de Oro City. On the other hand, the respondents Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is an agency of the government whose main function is the assessment and collection of taxes. Its main office is located at BIR National Office, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Revenue Region No. 16 and Revenue District No. 98 are holding their respective offices at BIR Building, Westbound Terminal, Bulua, 9000 Cagayan de Oro City. On April 24, 2008, petitioner received a Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 200100057432 4 which authorized the BIR to examine his books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. In connection with the said LOA, the BIR also sent the petitioner a letter captioned, First Notice 5 dated March 27, 2008 requesting for documents to be submitted. The notice was received by the petitioner also on April 24, 2008. On May 14, 2008, petitioner received a letter which was captioned, Second Notice 6 dated the same day. On July 24, 2008, petitioner received a letter captioned, Final Notice 7 requesting for the same documents in connection with LOA No. 200100057432. Petitioner received a Notice of Informal Conference with Details of Discrepancies 8 dated September 2, 2008, finding it liable for deficiency income tax for taxable year 2006 in the amount of P4,405,047.52. On December 10, 2008, petitioner received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), 9 finding it liable for deficiency income tax for taxable year 2006 in the amount of P4,127,674.61. The BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand dated April 21, 2009 with Assessment Notice and Details of Computation and Discrepancies (FLD/FAN). 10 The same was received by the petitioner on May 11, 2009. 11 In response to the FLD/FAN, the petitioner wrote a letter 12 to the BIR dated June 10, 2009 requesting for a reinvestigation. The BIR then sent petitioner two (2) collection letters, the first dated October 1, 2009 13 and the second dated November 18, 2009 14 reminding petitioner to settle his deficiency tax liability. On December 22, 2009, the BIR received a letter 15 from petitioner dated December 21, 2009, again disputing the deficiency tax assessment. 16 On May 31, 2010, the petitioner received a notice of tax lien 17 dated May 28, 2010, including a final notice before seizure 18 dated May 11, 2010. On March 27, 2014, a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy was served constructively on petitioner because his representative refused to acknowledge the service of the warrant. 19 The petitioner alleges that he later found the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy by sheer coincidence on January 23, 2015. 20 Hence, he filed the instant petition for review. Within the extended time 21 granted by the Court, respondent filed his Answer 22 on May 29, 2015, interposing the following special and affirmative defenses: aScITE " SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the present petition. A. The formal letter of demand and final assessment notice has become final, executory and demandable. 4. With all due respect, it is the position of respondents that the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the present petition since the assessment has become final, executory and demandable and undisputable. 5. Section 228 of the Tax Code, as amended provides for the period within which to protest the assessment for deficiency taxes, viz. : xxx xxx xxx Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise the assessment shall have become final. x x x (Emphasis supplied) 6. Petitioner categorically admitted in a letter dated 20 May 2010 addressed to Ms. Ester S. Palala, Revenue District Officer that 'the undersigned received a Formal Letter of Demand dated 21 April 2009.' 7. The Registry Return Receipt shows that the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice was received by petitioner himself on 11 May 2009. Counting thirty (30) days from 11 May 2009, petitioner has until 11 June 2009 to file protest. However, petitioner was able to file reply only on 18 June 2009, as shown by a copy of said letter attached to the 20 May 2010 letter submitted by petitioner. Hence, the assessment becomes final, executory, demandable and undisputable. 8. Moreover, the reply letter is not tantamount to a protest letter since it was so brief it only contained 2 sentences: (1) We are requesting to you and your good self to re-investigate or re-audit of our book of account for the year 2006, under RO RO S. Bagul; and (2) Thank you and more power! 9. The same cannot and should not be considered a protest letter as required by the Tax Code and the rules since the contents thereof did not conform to requirements of the revenue regulation. It failed to state the facts, law or jurisprudence as required by the implementing rules. It is nothing but a mere scrap of paper, devoid of any substantiation with facts or law. Consequently, the reply letter is considered void. 10. Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 provides Sec. 3.1.5. Disputed Assessment. The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof . If there are several issues involved in the formal letter of demand and assessment notice but the taxpayer only disputes or protests against the validity of some of the issues raised, the taxpayer shall be required to pay the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the undisputed issues, in which case, a collection letter shall be issued to the taxpayer calling for payment of the said deficiency tax, inclusive of the applicable surcharge and/or interest. No action shall be taken on the taxpayer's disputed issues until the taxpayer has paid the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the said undisputed issues. The prescriptive period for assessment or collection of the tax or taxes attributable to the disputed issues shall be suspended. HEITAD The taxpayer shall state the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which his protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be considered void and without force and effect . If there are several issues involved in the disputed assessment and the taxpayer fails to state the facts, the applicable law; rules and regulations, or jurisprudence in support of his protest against some of the several issues on which the assessment is based, the same shall be considered undisputed issue or issues, in which case, the taxpayer shall be required to pay the corresponding deficiency tax or taxes attributable thereto. The taxpayer shall submit the required documents in support of his protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. The phrase "submit the required documents" includes submission or presentation of the pertinent documents for scrutiny and evaluation by the Revenue Officer conducting the audit. The said Revenue Officer shall state this fact in his report of investigation. If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. In general, if the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable: Provided, however, that if the taxpayer elevates his protest to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the latter's decision shall not be considered final, executory and demandable, in which case, the protest shall be decided by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative fails to act on the taxpayer's protest within one hundred eighty (180) days from date of submission, by the taxpayer, of the required documents in support of his protest, the taxpayer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the said 180-day period, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) ATICcS 11. The rule is clear, that protest of assessment shall state the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which his protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be considered void and without force and effect. Furthermore, the law and the rules provide that failure to file a valid protest within the period prescribed by law shall make the assessment final, executory, demandable and undisputable. 12. In the case at bar, there is no disputed assessment to speak of. It is crystal clear that petitioner failed to file protest within the period prescribed by law and the protest filed is pro forma . Accordingly, it is the position of the respondents that the Honorable Court is bereft of jurisdiction over the present petition. 13. It bears emphasis that the Court of Tax Appeals is a court of special jurisdiction and can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. Thus, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the petition. 14. Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. 1125 provides: Section 7. Jurisdiction. The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal , as herein provided. (1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 15. On the other hand, Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act No. 9282 provides: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: "a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: "1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 16. Also, Section 3, Rule 4 and Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals state: RULE 4 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT xxx xxx xxx SEC. 3. Cases Within the Jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments , refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 17. Based on the above provisions of law and the rules, the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court is clearly limited to tax disputes arising from assessments or refunds and not to undisputable assessments. 18. Moreover, pursuant to the above provision, decisions, rulings or inaction of the Commissioner are appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals, within thirty (30) days from receipt of such decision or ruling, or within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the 180-day period fixed by law for the Commissioner to act on the disputed assessment. The 30-day period within which to file an appeal is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith would bar the appeal and deprive the Court of Tax Appeals of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the correctness of the assessments. Such period is not merely directory but mandatory and it is beyond the power of the courts to extend the same. B. Assuming argumenti that petitioner filed a valid protest, the collection letters and the subsequent issuance of the Warrant of Distraint and Levy serves as denial of the protest. 19. Finding no merit in the reply letter a Preliminary Collection Letter dated 01 October 2009 was issued and sent to petitioner. In the said letter, respondent demanded the payment of the deficiency income tax due in the amount of PhP4,345,892.79. 20. The said collection letter is tantamount to the denial of the alleged "protest" filed by petitioner. In effect, the aforesaid collection letter is the final decision of the respondent on the protest of the petitioner, which is appealable to this Court. cSEDTC 21. It is also worthy to note that petitioner received a Warrant of Distraint and Levy on 2 March 2014. At the very least, petitioner should have filed an appeal to the Honorable Court within thirty (30) days from even date or until 26 April 2014 . But it is evident that petitioner only filed the present petition for review on 20 February 2015 . That's six days short of one year. But it bears emphasis that the period allowed by law to file an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals is only thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision from the Bureau. 22. Petitioner is clutching at straws when he said that he only found the Warrant of Distraint and Levy while he was helping his wife clean their bodega. And that was his reckoning point when he filed the present petition. That was a last ditch effort that must go straight down the drain. 23. The collection letters and the Warrant of Distraint and Levy which was received by petitioner verily signified a character of finality, which was likewise tantamount to the denial of its alleged protest. In the said collection letter, the Commissioner not only demanded that the petitioner pay the amount of PhP4,345,892.79 as deficiency income tax, but it likewise gave a warning that in the event of petitioner's failure to pay, the Commissioner would be constrained to enforce the collection thereof by means of the remedies provided by law. Thus, the issuance of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy. It was the issuance of said Warrant which is a proper subject of appeal before the Honorable Court. 24. In this regard, petitioner should have elevated its appeal to the Honorable Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Warrant. Thus, for failure to file an appeal the assessment became final, incontestable, and beyond any subsequent protest proceeding, administrative or judicial, to rule upon. 25. In the case of Oceanic Wireless Network Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. , 23 the Honorable Supreme Court held: Here, petitioner failed to avail of its right to bring the matter before the Court of Tax Appeals within the reglementary period upon the receipt of the demand letter reiterating the assessed delinquent taxes and denying its request for reconsideration which constituted the final determination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on petitioner's protest. Being a final disposition by said agency, the same would have been a proper subject for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. The rule is that for the Court of Tax Appeals to acquire jurisdiction, an assessment must first be disputed by the taxpayer and ruled upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to warrant a decision from which a petition for review may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. Where an adverse ruling has been rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund or credit, the taxpayer may appeal the same within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. We agree with the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals that the demand letter may be presumed to have been duly directed, mailed and was received by petitioner in the regular course of the mail in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is in accordance with Section 2(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, and in this case, since the period to appeal has commenced to run from the time the letter of demand was presumably received by petitioner within a reasonable time after January 24, 1991, the period of thirty (30) days to appeal the adverse decision on the request for reconsideration had already lapsed when the petition was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals only on November 8, 1991. Hence, the Court of Tax Appeals properly dismissed the petition as the tax delinquency assessment had long become final and executory . (Emphasis supplied) 26. Well settled is the rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such exercise. Hence the legal requirements must be strictly complied with. As in this case, appeal must be availed of within the period and in the manner provided for by law; otherwise, upon the lapse of the period to appeal from a decision or final order and no appeal has been perfected by the aggrieved party, such final order or decision ipso facto becomes final and executory. The appellate court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction over a belated appeal from the said order or decision. SDAaTC 27. In light of all the foregoing, it is conclusive that petitioner is in no position to file this petition to seek relief from the Honorable Court. Further, assuming argumenti that the Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the present petition, petitioner is still liable to pay the deficiency income tax due. 28. For failure to fully settle its tax liabilities a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy was issued. Clearly, the subject matter of the present petition is an undisputed assessment which has become final, executory and demandable. 29. Nevertheless, it is worthy to note that under the law and the rules, a valid assessment is accomplished following the stages of Notice of Informal Conference, Preliminary Assessment Notice and Final Assessment Notice. The procedure prescribed under RR No. 12-99 have been complied with by respondent. 30. Further, for taxable year 2006, audit and investigation disclosed that petitioner failed to pay the correct tax. In the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice, the examiner pointed out the following discrepancies: Verification of the properties declared and/or under the name of the taxpayer indicated a total amount of P7,320,715.56 while the Financial Statement attached to the Income Tax Return indicated a total amount of P215,850.00. The difference between the two figures is considered to be an underdeclaration of real properties resulting to an underdeclaration of revenues. This method of investigation in determining unreported income has been upheld in many cases decided by the Supreme Court. The authority of the Commissioner to use this method is based on two provisions of the Tax Code which provides in part: 1. 'The taxable income shall be computed x x x in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer, but if no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the method employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion of the Commissioner does clearly reflect income.' (Section 43, NIRC) 2. 'When a report required by law as a basis for the assessment of any national internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming within the time fixed by laws or rules and regulations or when there is reason to believe that any such report is false, incomplete or erroneous, the Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on the best evidence obtainable.' (Section 6(B), NIRC) Furthermore, the Revenue Officer disallowed 50% of the operating expenses declared and charged against the total revenue of the taxpayer. This approach of investigation is based on the following provision of law which provides in part: 'Section 34(b) provides that 'No deduction from gross income shall be allowed unless that taxpayer shall substitute with sufficient evidence, such as official receipts or other adequate records; (1) the amount of expense being deducted, and the (ii) direct connection or relation of the expense being deducted to the development, management and operation and/or conduct of the trade, business or profession of the taxpayer.' If there is a showing that expenses have been incurred but the exact amount thereof cannot be ascertained due to the absence of documentary evidence, it is the duty of the BIR to make an estimate of deduction that may be allowed in computing the taxpayer's taxable income bearing heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his own making. A disallowance of 50% of the taxpayer's claimed deduction is valid as provided for under RMC 23-2000. acEHCD 31. In view of the foregoing, petitioner is liable to pay the assessed deficiency income tax. And considering that the assessment against petitioner is deemed final, executory and demandable it is already considered as an account receivable and asset of the government. 32. The Honorable Supreme Court held that, "tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, and all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment unless proven otherwise. Indeed, any objection against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue paved in Section 229 (now Section 228) of the NIRC on protests on assessments on internal revenue taxes." 33. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is wrong but the taxpayer is right. Otherwise, the presumption of correctness of tax assessments stands. 34. Petitioner has not pointed out any provision or item in the assessment notice which bears any trace of falsity. Its [sic] averments were based on conjectures, surmises and speculations. These cannot supply the basis for the charge of impropriety in the assessments made. 35. The assessment for taxable year 2006 in the amount of PhP4,345,892.79 including penalties and interest as of 16 April 2007 was issued in accordance with law and regulations." Pre-Trial Conference was set on September 24, 2015. 24 Thus, Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief 25 was filed on September 16, 2015, while the Pre-Trial Brief for the Petitioner 26 was filed on September 21, 2015. Petitioner by counsel filed an Addendum to Judicial-Affidavit and Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits 27 on September 3, 2015. In the Resolution 28 dated November 12, 2015, the Court admitted the petitioner's Exhibits "P-1", "P-2", "P-4", "P-5", "P-5-a", "P-5-b", "P-5-c", "P-5-d", "P-6", "P-7", "P-8", "P-9", "P-10", "P-11" , and "P-12" . Petitioner's admitted exhibits are as follows: Exhibit: Description: P-1 to P-1-A Judicial Affidavit of the petitioner P-2 Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy P-4 Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-39736 P-5 to P-5-D Annual Income Tax Return for 2006, Balance Sheet and Consolidated Income Statement P-6 and P-6-A Pre-Assessment Notice (PAN) dated December 10, 2009 issued by RD Gandarosa of Revenue Region No. 16 P-7 Petitioner's letter dated June 10, 2009 addressed to the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 16 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue P-8 Petitioner's letter dated December 21, 2009 addressed to the RDO of Revenue District No. 98 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue P-9 Notice of Tax Lien dated May 28, 2010 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue addressed to the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City P-10 and P-11 Letters from the RDO of Revenue District No. 98 dated May 11, 2010 and November 9, 2010 P-12 Petitioner's letter to the RDO of Revenue District No. 98 dated November 23, 2010 On the other hand, the Formal Offer of Evidence for the Respondent 29 was filed on September 5, 2016. In the Resolution 30 dated November 28, 2016, the Court admitted the respondent's Exhibits "R-1", "R-2", "R-3", "R-4", "R-5", "R-6", "R-7", "R-8", "R-9", "R-10", "R-11", "R-12", "R-13", "R-14", "R-15", "R-16", "R-17", "R-18", "R-19", "R-20", "R-21", "R-22", "R-22-a", "R-23", "R-23-a", "R-24" and "R-24-a" . The admitted documentary exhibits offered by the respondent are the following: Exhibit: Description: R-1 Letter of Authority No. 2001-00057432 dated 24 March 2008 R-2 First Notice for Presentation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records dated 27 March 2008 R-3 Second Notice for Presentation of Books of Accounts and other Accounting Records dated 14 May 2008 R-4 Final Notice Presentation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records R-5 Notice of Informal Conference dated 2 September 2008 with Details of Discrepancies R-6 Memorandum of Assignment dated 28 September 2008 R-7 Preliminary Collection Letter dated 01 October 2009 R-8 Second Collection Letter dated 18 November 2009 R-9 Final Notice before Seizure dated 11 May 2010 R-10 Memorandum dated 24 May 2010 R-11 Memorandum dated 31 May 2010 from the OIC Chief Legal Division R-12 Memorandum dated 10 August 2010 R-13 Memorandum dated 11 October 2010 from the OIC Chief Legal Division R-14 Certification from the Office of the Post Master R-15 Masterlist of Registered Mail by the BIR R-16 Letter from RDO Ester S. Palala dated 09 November 2010 R-17 Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated 27 March 2014 R-18 Notice of Tax Lien dated 7 November 2014 R-19 Charge Slip dated 13 October 2008 issued by the Chief of Assessment Division R-20 Preliminary Assessment Notice with attached details of discrepancies R-21 Formal Letter of Demand with attached Details of Discrepancies dated 21 April 2009 R-22 Judicial Affidavit of RO Schneider Bagul R-22-a Signature of RO Schneider Bagul in her Judicial Affidavit R-23 Judicial Affidavit of RO Maria Tita O. De Leon-Maoke R-23-a Signature of RO Maria Tita O. De Leon-Maoke in her judicial affidavit R-24 Judicial Affidavit of RO Cherry Mae M. Paitao-Sumandar R-24-a Signature of RO Cherry Mae M. Paitao-Sumandar Respondent filed its memorandum 31 on May 21, 2018 while petitioner filed his memorandum 32 on August 28, 2018. Thus, in the Resolution dated September 11, 2018, 33 the instant Petition for Review was submitted for decision. The parties stipulated on the following issue 34 for the resolution of this Court: SDHTEC Whether petitioner is liable to pay the aggregate amount of PhP4,345,892.9 for deficiency income tax for taxable year 2006. After consideration of the allegations in the parties' pleadings and of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the disputed deficiency income tax assessment has attained finality for petitioner's failure to timely file a valid protest. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides for the procedure in protesting assessment notices, thus: "SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings; xxx xxx xxx Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations . Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable." (Emphasis supplied) In connection therewith, the rule applicable at the time the assessment subject of this petition for review was issued was Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, implementing Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reads: "3.1.5 Disputed Assessment. The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof. If there are several issues involved in the formal letter of demand and assessment notice but the taxpayer only disputes or protests against the validity of some of the issues raised, the taxpayer shall be required to pay the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the undisputed issues, in which case, a collection letter shall be issued to the taxpayer calling for payment of the said deficiency tax, inclusive of the applicable surcharge and/or interest. No action shall be taken on the taxpayer's disputed issues until the taxpayer has paid the deficiency tax or taxes attributable to the said undisputed issues. The prescriptive period for assessment or collection of the tax or taxes attributable to the disputed issues shall be suspended. The taxpayer shall state the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which his protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be considered void and without force and effect . If there are several issues involved in the disputed assessment and the taxpayer fails to state the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence in support of his protest against some of the several issues on which the assessment is based, the same shall be considered undisputed issue or issues, in which case, the taxpayer shall be required to pay the corresponding deficiency tax or taxes attributable thereto. The taxpayer shall submit the required documents in support of his protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable . The phrase "submit the required documents" includes submission or presentation of the pertinent documents for scrutiny and evaluation by the Revenue Officer conducting the audit. The said Revenue Officer shall state this fact in his report of investigation. If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. " Based on the foregoing provision, petitioner's action must fail as he failed to file a valid protest within the time allowed by law. The rules explicitly require that the protest should state the facts and law upon which it is based, otherwise, the protest shall be considered void and without force and effect. In this case, it is undisputed that the purported protest letter 35 filed by petitioner simply reads: "Madam We are requesting to your good self to re-investigate or re-audit of our book of account for the year 2006, under RO S. Bagul. Thank you and more power! Very truly yours, JEAN G. TIU CHIN Taxpayer" It is plainly apparent that indeed petitioner failed to state the facts, applicable law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which the alleged protest is based. Thus, petitioner's protest letter is considered void and without force and effect. There being no valid protest on the assessment issued by respondent, the assessment has attained finality by mere lapse of time and can no longer be disputed. The Court of Tax Appeals exercises appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, among others. In this regard, Section 7 (a) (1) Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282 provides: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments , refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;" (Underscoring supplied) HESIcT In this case, the assessment did not become a "disputed assessment" subject to the Court's review because petitioner failed to file an administrative protest thereon. The Court of Tax Appeals, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance only of matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction. 36 The Court's jurisdiction may only be invoked in the particular instances prescribed under Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282. It is necessary for petitioner to file a valid administrative protest in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction. Without a valid protest on the assessment the same becomes final, executory and demandable, and the Court is deprived of jurisdiction to rule on its validity. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, J. , concurs. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , with Concurring Opinion. Separate Opinions DEL ROSARIO, P.J., concurring opinion : I submit that the Court is deprived of jurisdiction to review the case for failure of petitioner to make a timely appeal. The thirty (30)-day period within which to file an appeal from the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), as provided in Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, 1 is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith would bar the appeal and deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to entertain and determine the correctness of the assessments. Such period is not merely directory but mandatory and it is beyond the power of the courts to extend the same. 2 The records disclose that petitioner received communications from the BIR on the following respective dates: (i) May 31, 2010 Notice of Tax Lien including a Final Notice Before Seizure; 3 and (ii) March 27, 2014 Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy served constructively to petitioner because his representative refused to acknowledge the service of the warrant. 4 Truth to tell, the Final Notice Before Seizure issued by the BIR, which was received by petitioner on May 31, 2010, is considered a final decision of the BIR on the disputed assessment as declared in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Isabela Cultural Corporation . 5 Petitioner should have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court by filing within the 30-day period his Petition for Review from receipt of the said final decision of the BIR. Even if the Court disregards the existence of the Final Notice Before Seizure, petitioner should have filed his Petition for Review within 30 days from March 27, 2014, the date the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy was served upon him, or until April 26, 2014 . Sorely, he filed the Petition for Review only on February 20, 2015 , which is clearly beyond the 30-day period. In fine, the final decision of the BIR on the disputed assessment by way of its issuance of the Final Notice Before Seizure, or the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy, already became final, executory and demandable by operation of law. 6 Otherwise stated, considering petitioner's failure to file a timely appeal, the CTA was deprived of its jurisdiction to act on the Petition for Review, much more to decide the case on the merits. The only power left with the Court is to dismiss the case. All told, I vote to DISMISS the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. Footnotes 1. Sec. 7. Jurisdiction . The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; xxx xxx xxx 2. Rule 4, Sec. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division . The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; xxx xxx xxx 3. Rule 8. Sec. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade & Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. xxx xxx xxx 4. Exhibit "R-1", BIR Records, p. 5. 5. Exhibit "R-2", BIR Records, p. 16. 6. Exhibit "R-3", BIR Records, p. 17. 7. Exhibit "R-4", BIR Records, p. 18. 8. Exhibit "R-5", BIR Records, pp. 21-23. 9. Exhibit "P-6", CTA Docket, p. 170. 10. Judicial Affidavit of Cherry Mae M. Paltao, CTA Docket, p. 313.; Exhibit "R-21", BIR Records, pp. 39-44. 11. Judicial Affidavit of Florenton M. Chin, CTA Docket, p. 155. 12. Exhibit "P-7", CTA Docket, p. 172. 13. Exhibit "R-7", BIR Records, p. 46. 14. Exhibit "R-8", BIR Records, p. 47. 15. Exhibit "P-8", CTA Docket, p. 173. 16. Par. 13, Petitioner's Memorandum. 17. Exhibit "P-9", CTA Docket, p. 175. 18. Exhibit "P-10", CTA Docket, p. 176. 19. Exhibit "R-17", BIR Records, p. 98. 20. Par. 3, Petition for Review. 21. Resolution dated May 11, 2015, CTA Docket, p. 114. 22. Answer, CTA Docket, pp. 133-145. 23. G.R. No. 148380 , December 9, 2005. 24. Minutes of the Hearing dated September 24, 2015, CTA Docket, pp. 321-325. 25. Pre-Trial Brief, CTA Docket, pp. 254-259. 26. Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief, C T A Docket, pp. 273-277. 27. Addendum to Judicial-Affidavit and Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, CTA Docket, pp. 220 - 223. 28. Resolution dated November 12, 2015, C T A Docket, pp. 345-346. 29. Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence, CTA Docket, pp. 437-448. 30. CTA Docket, pp. 472-473. 31. Respondent's Memorandum, C T A Docket, pp. 535-550. 32. Petitioner's Memorandum, CTA Docket. 33. Resolution dated September 11, 2018, CTA Docket. 34. Pre-Trial Order dated June 21, 2016, CTA Docket, pp. 412-419. 35. Petitioner's Exhibit "P-7", Docket, p. 172 . 36. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007. DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , concurring opinion: 1. SEC. 11. Who May Appeal, Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal . any party adversely affected by a decision , ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue , the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7 (a) (2) herein. (Boldfacing supplied) 2. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007. 3. Exhibit "P-1"; CTA Docket, pp. 151-159, 156. 4. Exhibit "R-17"; BIR Records, p. 98. 5. G.R. No. 135210, July 11, 2001. 6. Sec. 228. Protesting of Assessment. x x x If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day period ; o therwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable .