China Banking Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SIXTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 60788. May 28, 2001.] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . D E C I S I O N BUZON , J p : Petitioner seeks a review of the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated June 1, 2000 dismissing its claim for tax refund, as well as the Resolution dated August 21, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The Court of Tax Appeals denied petitioner's claim for tax refund for lack of evidence for the reason that no source document was presented in support thereof. In this petition for review, petitioner contends that its claim for tax refund was established by sufficient material, competent and uncontroverted evidence, consisting of Exhibits "A", "B" and "B-8", "C", "D", "E", "F" and "F-31", "F-4-1" "F-8" and "F-8-2", "G", "H", "I" and "I-1", together with the testimony of Mr. Vitaliano Castillo, Jr. Commenting on the petition, respondent argues that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim for tax refund for failure to present the source document in support thereof, considering that tax refund partakes the nature of tax exemption and is strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the government. ECcaDT It is significant to note that the documentary and testimonial evidence enumerated by petitioner are not appended to the petition. Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the petition for review shall be accompanied with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers. Thus, Section 7 of said Rule provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements, such as the documents which should accompany the petition, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The purpose of the requirement that material portions of the record referred to in the petition and other supporting documents should be appended to the petition is to enable this Court to determine the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. For, without the necessary documents to support the petition, the allegations therein are reduced to nothing more than bare allegations, which warrant the dismissal of the petition. 1 Moreover, the law looks with disfavor on tax exemptions and he who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. 2 WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Versola and Reyes, JJ . , concur. Footnotes 1. Atillo vs. Bombay , G.R. No. 136096, February 7, 2001. 2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd. , 65 SCRA 142, 153.