334 Phil. 965; 93 OG No. 49, 8153 (December 8, 1997)
FRANCISCO, J.:
1985 | ||
---|---|---|
Prior year's excess Income tax payments (Exh. A) Plus: | P 3,016,841.00 | |
Taxes withheld on | ||
Interest | P 255,864.00 | 1,068,244.00 (Exh. A) |
Rentals, etc. | 812,380.00 | P 4,085,085.00 |
Less: | ||
Income Tax | P 2,620,347. 00 | |
1981 tax credit | ||
Claimed in CTA | ||
Case No. 3964 | 1,190,861.95 | 3,811,208.95 |
P 237,876.05 (Exh. D) | ||
Excess tax payments | ||
1986 | ||
Taxes Withheld by | ||
withholding agents | 1,126,065.40 (Exh. C) | |
Total excess tay payments | P 1,399,941.45”[1] | |
“In the light of the course respondent has chosen to prove his case, the approach turns out short. In a very recent case (Citytrust Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4099, May 28, 1991) we concluded under similar circumstances:‘Respondent did not object to the existence of statements and certificates which were offered by petitioner as proof of the withholding taxes but took exception to their contents and purposes. Despite said reservation, up until the submission of this case for decision, respondent was not heard to complain about the veracity of the contents of these documents or exhibits nor has it shown any irregularity in the same which will taint their reliability or sufficiency as proofs of the taxes withheld despite the fact that it is well within their competence to do so. Respondent is thereby considered to have admitted the truth of the contents of these exhibits. Hence, those amounts of withheld taxes which are supported by corresponding statements or certificates of withholding taxes admitted in evidence shall be allowed as tax credits.’
“Nor does the failure of respondent affect only the subject of 1985 taxes. Against the claimed deductions by petitioner for 1986, which it supported with tax returns as evidence, respondent could only give out the perfunctory resistance such as that ‘mere allegation of net loss does not ipso facto merit a refund.’ But respondent for his part, did not present any evidence that would have disputed the correctness of the tax returns and other material facts therein (Citytrust Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra).On September 17, 1991, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforegoing decision. Seeking the admission in evidence of a report[4] submitted only on September 18, 1991 by the BIR Official who investigated ANSCOR’s claim for refund, a supplemental motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner on September 27, 1991. The Court of Tax Appeals, however, denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. In a resolution dated December 9, 1992, it held, among others, that the petitioner cannot be allowed to present the BIR report of September 18, 1991 because such report was in the personal physical possession of a subordinate of the petitioner during the trial and is therefore not in the nature of a newly discovered evidence but is merely “forgotten evidence.”[5] The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the singular issue of: “whether C.T.A. Case No. 4201 should be reopened in order to allow petitioner to present in evidence the report of investigation of the BIR officer on private respondent’s claim for refund.”[6]
xxx xxx xxx
“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Respondent is ordered to issue a tax credit memorandum to petitioner in the sum of P1,399,941.45 to be used as payment for its internal revenue tax liabilities.”[3]
“To accept the contrary view of the petitioner would give rise to a dangerous precedent in that there would be no end to a hearing before respondent court because, every time a party is aggrieved by its decision, he can have it set aside by asking to be allowed to present additional evidence without having to comply with the requirements of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Rule 13 Section 5 of the Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals should not be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation of issues and their resolution. To do so would affect, to a considerable extent, the principle of stability of judicial decisions.”[9]
“Barring and assuming presentation of the requested documents and taking into consideration the certification of creditable income taxes withheld issued by the Chief, Withholding Tax Division (See Annex "B" and B-1 and B-2) that only the total amount of P414,292.06, and P414,772.99 creditable income taxes withheld from A. Soriano Corporation (ANSCOR) for the taxable year 1985 and 1986, respectively, the maximum amount that can be favorably subjected to a tax credit memo for the two (2) taxable year will only be P34,697.10, computed as follows
Balance of the accumulatedtax credit as of 1985 after credit under CTA Case No. 3694 | P1,825,979.05 |
---|---|
Add: 1985 Creditable Tax Withheld per Certificate by the Withholding Tax Division | 414,292.06 |
Total | 2,240,271.1 |
Less:Tax Due perreturn -1985 | 2,620,347.00 |
Difference | 380,075.89 |
Less:Creditable Taxes Withheld for 1986 per Certification by Withholding Tax Division | 414,772.99 |
Excess Tax Credit which may be subjected to a Tax Credit Memo | P 34,697.10 |