G.R. No. 135210 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS. ISABELA CULTURAL CORPORATION.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered REMANDING the case to the CTA for proper disposition." [4] The Facts The facts are undisputed. The Court of Appeals quoted the summary of the CTA as follows: "As succinctly summarized by the Court of Tax appeals (CTA for brevity), the antecedent facts are as follows: `In an investigation conducted on the 1986 books of account of [respondent, petitioner] had the preliminary [finding] that [respondent] incurred a total income tax deficiency of P9,985,392.15, inclusive of increments. Upon protest by [respondent's] counsel, the said preliminary assessment was reduced to the amount of P325,869.44, a breakdown of which follows: Deficiency Income Tax P321,022.68 Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax 4,846.76 ------------- Total P325,869.44 (pp. 187-189, BIR records)' On February 23, 1990, [respondent] received from [petitioner] an assessment letter, dated February 9, 1990, demanding payment of the amounts of P333,196.86 and P4,897.79 as deficiency income tax and expanded withholding tax inclusive of surcharge and interest, respectively, for the taxable period from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. (pp. 204 and 205, BIR rec.) In a letter, dated March 22, 1990, filed with the [petitioner's] office on March 23, 1990 (pp. 296-311, BIR rec.), [respondent] requested x x x a reconsideration of the subject assessment. Supplemental to its protest was a letter, dated April 2, 1990, filed with the [petitioner's] office on April 18, 1990 (pp. 224 & 225, BIR rec.), to which x x x were attached certain documents supportive of its protest, as well as a Waiver of Statute of Limitation, dated April 17, 1990, where it was indicated that [petitioner] would only have until April 5, 1991 within which to asses and collect the taxes that may be found due from [respondent] after the re-investigation. On February 9, 1995, [respondent] received from [petitioner] a Final Notice Before Seizure, dated December 22, 1994 (p. 340, BIR rec.). In said letter, [petitioner] demanded payment of the subject assessment within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Otherwise, failure on its part would constrain [petitioner] to collect the subject assessment through summary remedies. [Respondent] considered said final notice of seizure as [petitioner's] final decision. Hence, the instant petition for review filed with this Court on March 9, 1995. The CTA having rendered judgment dismissing the petition, [respondent] filed the instant petition anchored on the argument that [petitioner's] issuance of the Final Notice Before Seizure constitutes [its] decision on [respondent's] request for reinvestigation, which the [respondent] may appeal to the CTA." [5] Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Tax Appeals. The CA considered the final notice sent by petitioner as the latter's decision, which was appealable to the CTA. The appellate court reasoned t