AF Holdings and Management Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIFTEENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 31759. August 26, 1999.] AF HOLDINGS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF TAX APPEALS , respondent . D E C I S I O N SABIO , J.L. , Jr. , J p : This Petition For Review of a Decision and Resolution of Public Respondent Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4529. Petitioner, however, reasons further that since the assailed decision subsequent resolution failed to consider the evidence presented in violation of procedural due process or so grossly misconstrued it as to deprive herein petitioner of substantive due process, it may also be considered as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. LexLib The antecedents to this instant Petition as briefly outlined in Public Respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue's comment, is as follows: On January 2, 1991, Petitioner filed before Public Respondent Court of Tax Appeals (CTA for Brevity) a Petition For Review, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 4529, to interrupt the prescriptive period for a claim for refund of P3,508.32 as alleged creditable taxes withheld from income payments to Petitioner in 1988. By way special and affirmative defenses, Public Respondent BIR objected to the Petition For Review, stating, others, that in claim for refund, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to show that it is entitled thereto, otherwise, failure on the part of the Petitioner to prove the same is fatal to its claim for refund, on March 6, 1993. Public Respondent CTA rendered a decision denying the claim for refund of Petitioner whose Motion For Reconsideration on April 21, 1993 was also denied in a resolution dated July 20, 1993, hence, this Petition. THERE IS NO MERIT TO THIS PETITION In coming to Us, Petitioner raises this issue: Has Petitioner established its right to a refund of P3,508.32 for overpaid income tax for 1988? Under existing jurisprudence. We cannot rule in favor of Petitioner. By doing so, We would be setting aside the conclusion arrived at by Public Respondent CTA, and that We cannot do. We are all too aware of what the Supreme Court said in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 605, where it ruled and We quote "As a matter of principle the Supreme Court will not set aside the conclusion reached by the Court of Tax Appeals, which is by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of Tax Problems and has necessarily developed or expertise on the subject unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority" unquote. There is nothing in the records of the case which would indicate that, as claimed by Petitioner, Public Respondent CTA, failed to consider the evidence presented in violation of procedural due process or so grossly misconstrued it as to deprive it of substantive due process, which would tantamount to abuse or improvident exercise of authority. That the Public Respondent CTA considered the evidence of Petitioner is very evident in the assailed decision where it said: "The evidence at hand hardly gives us a legal ground not even a logical one to grant the claim for refund as prayed by the petitioner. The amount of P3,508.32 is not even reflected in any and all of the evidences offered by the petitioner. We cannot just make our own wild conjectures as to how the amount was arrived at wanting the necessary supporting documents. Of course, the petitioner does not expect this Court to go beyond evaluating evidences which are only at hand. In short, the claim for refund falls under the category of mere self-serving stipulations advanced by the petitioner. In a claim for refund, as pointed out by the respondent, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that it is entitled thereto, otherwise, failure on its part to prove the same is fatal to its claim for refund. This is true since claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for it partakes of the nature of exemption from taxation. (Comm. of Int. Rev. v. Ledesma, G.R. No. L-17509, Jan. 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 95). In the hearing of this case on October 22, 1991, petitioner averred that a part of the P6,500.00 creditable tax withheld in 1988 was partially applied to its income liability in 1989. However, the 1989 income tax return was never presented for proper evaluation and identification. Such documents are wanting in support of the petitioner's case". (Decision, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 45-46) The assailed Resolution of July 20, 1993 likewise shows that the Public Respondent CTA afforded Petitioner both procedural and substantive due process, which for clarity purposes. We are quoting hereunder. "After careful consideration of petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on April 21, 1993, this Court finds no sufficient and valid reason to reconsider or modify its decision dated March 16. 1993 in the above-entitled case. llcd The exhibit 1 presented on April 28, 1993, during the hearing of said motion, marked as Exhibit "A" Motion for Reconsideration has ceased to be of any consequence after a decision has been rendered, and their presentation now would not in any way alter the decision of this Court. Petitioner could have well presented the document during the deliberation of this case and formally offered them as evidence but did not do so. Rather, it merely relied on the testimony of its witness. On the face of its 1988 Income Tax Returns 2 , petitioner elected to refund the P13,00.00 prior year's excess credit and to apply to the succeeding taxable year the amount of P4,681.00. However, such declaration was even at variance with its 1989 Income Tax Return, for the amount carried-over was the whole refundable amount of P17,681.00 amount and not the PPH = 4,681.00 manifested in the earlier return. Sec. 2(a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court 3 provides: "Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions. The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: "(a) Whenever party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it: xxx xxx xxx" It must be stressed that petitioner's motion for reconsideration does not allege new matters. Thus, we do not find anything in the questioned decision that should be disturbed. "ACCORDINGLY, said motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED "SO ORDERED. "Quezon City, Metro Manila, July 20, 1993 "(SGD.) ERNESTO D ACOSTA Presiding Judge "(SGD.) RAMON O. DE VEYRA (SGD.) MANUEL K. GRUBA Associate Judge Associate Judge FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED. this petition is ORDERED DISMISSED. dctai With cost to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. Hofilea and Amin, JJ . , concur. Footnotes 1. The 1989 Income Tax Return. 2. Exh. "A". 3. Paras, Rules of Court Annotated, 1991 Ed., p. 478.