G.R. No. L-17991; October 31, 1962
JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3, MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued deficiency income tax assessments against petitioner Jose Ma. Del Rosario for the years 1950 to 1953. The assessments were initially communicated in 1955. The petitioner, through counsel, protested these assessments and engaged in protracted correspondence with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, requesting reinvestigations and challenging the legal and factual bases of the assessments over several years.
A pivotal communication was the Collector of Internal Revenue’s letter dated January 30, 1957. This letter denied the petitioner’s request for reinvestigation due to his failure to submit a waiver of the statute of limitations and demanded payment of the specified tax amounts, plus penalties, by a set deadline, warning of enforced collection. Subsequent letters from the Commissioner, including one dated March 9, 1960, reiterated the finality of the assessment and the intent to use summary collection methods. The petitioner finally filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals on July 19, 1960.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for being filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period prescribed under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 .

RULING

Yes, the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appeal was filed out of time. The legal logic centers on the finality of the administrative decision and the computation of the appeal period. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 mandates that appeals from the Commissioner’s decisions must be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days from receipt of the decision.
The Court ruled that the period for appeal began to run from the Commissioner’s letter of January 30, 1957. This letter constituted a final decision as it unequivocally denied the reinvestigation request, demanded payment, and warned of collection enforcement, making the assessment final and appealable. While taxpayers are encouraged to exhaust administrative remedies, they cannot indefinitely delay the finality of a decision through pro forma or dilatory requests. Subsequent communications, including the March 9, 1960 letter, merely confirmed this finality. Counting from either date, the petition filed on July 19, 1960, was filed well beyond the 30-day statutory period. The Court emphasized that the period of appeal cannot be left to the discretion of the taxpayer to extend through repeated requests after a clear final decision has been rendered.