11 LASCONA VS CIR
11. Lascona Land Co., Inc. v. CIR
FACTS:
On March 27, 1998, the CIR issued Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407 against Lascona Land (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year 1993 in the amount of P753,266.56.
Consequently, on April 20, 1998, Lascona filed a letter protest, but was denied., thus:
“Anent the 1993 tax case of subject taxpayer, please be informed that while we agree with the arguments advanced in your letter protest, we regret, however, that we cannot give due course to your request to cancel or set aside the assessment notice issued to your client for the reason that the case was not elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals as mandated by the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 228 of the Tax Code. By virtue thereof, the said assessment notice has become final, executory and demandable. In view of the foregoing, please advise your client to pay its 1993 deficiency income tax liability in the amount of P753,266.56.”
On April 12, 1999, Lascona appealed the decision before the CTA. Lascona alleged that the Regional Director erred in ruling that the failure to appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period rendered the assessment final and executory.
The CIR, however, maintained that Lascona's failure to timely file an appeal with the CTA after the lapse of the 180-day reglementary period provided under Section 228 of the NIRC resulted to the finality of the assessment.
CTA, in its Decision,7 nullified the subject assessment. It held that in cases of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, Section 228 of the NIRC provided two options for the taxpayer: (1) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period, or (2) wait until the Commissioner decides on his protest before he elevates the case.
The CIR moved for reconsideration. It argued that in declaring the subject assessment as final, executory and demandable, it did so pursuant
FACTS:
On March 27, 1998, the CIR issued Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407 against Lascona Land (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year 1993 in the amount of P753,266.56.
Consequently, on April 20, 1998, Lascona filed a letter protest, but was denied., thus:
“Anent the 1993 tax case of subject taxpayer, please be informed that while we agree with the arguments advanced in your letter protest, we regret, however, that we cannot give due course to your request to cancel or set aside the assessment notice issued to your client for the reason that the case was not elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals as mandated by the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 228 of the Tax Code. By virtue thereof, the said assessment notice has become final, executory and demandable. In view of the foregoing, please advise your client to pay its 1993 deficiency income tax liability in the amount of P753,266.56.”
On April 12, 1999, Lascona appealed the decision before the CTA. Lascona alleged that the Regional Director erred in ruling that the failure to appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period rendered the assessment final and executory.
The CIR, however, maintained that Lascona's failure to timely file an appeal with the CTA after the lapse of the 180-day reglementary period provided under Section 228 of the NIRC resulted to the finality of the assessment.
CTA, in its Decision,7 nullified the subject assessment. It held that in cases of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, Section 228 of the NIRC provided two options for the taxpayer: (1) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period, or (2) wait until the Commissioner decides on his protest before he elevates the case.
The CIR moved for reconsideration. It argued that in declaring the subject assessment as final, executory and demandable, it did so pursuant