Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18611 January 30, 1964
THE CITY LUMBER, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. MELENCIO R. DOMINGO, Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
THE HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
Medina and Medina for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
LABRADOR, J.:
Petitioner seeks the review of a decision of the Court Tax Appeals, upholding an assessment by respondent on an additional income of P16,678.63 representing minor deductions from the alleged expenses, on undisclosed sales of plywood, nails and GI sheets amounting to P7,902.07, and on a cash credit balance of P7,896.80. Petitioner claims that the respondent court erred in not holding that plywood and GI sheets were actually lost in a fire occuring in the city and in not considering the credit cash balance as a loan secured by petitioner.
On the first issue petitioner introduced as a witnesses in his favor the Chief of Police of the City of Dumaguete to testify on the existence of a fire in the city by reason of which the store of petitioner was looted of plywood and kegs of nails. But said witness declared that they recovery only 100 pieces of plywood and 5 kegs of nails, but these were returned to petitioner. The Court below, however, rejected the alleged loss of plywood because said loss was never reported in the books of petitioner; and neither was such loss reported in the income tax return of petitioner for the year, submitted some months after the alleged loss.
We hold that the conduct of petitioner in not reporting said loss in his book of account or in his income tax turn proves that the alleged loss had not been suffered.
On the alleged loan of the sum of around P8,000.00 which petitioner claims to be the cash credit balance appearing petitioner claims to be his book of account, petitioner's book of account failed to show such a loan also. Neither were any receipts or other evidence produced to show that said amount was a loan secured by petitioner, or that a loan was ever secured. In view of these We find that the respondent court did commit the error charged.
The third error is the alleged violation of an order of Commissioner granting Regional Directors authority close tax cases involving deficiency assessments not exceeding P10,000.00 in taxes and penalties for it appears that after a re-investigation of the tax liability of petitioner by the corresponding regional director the latter reviewed the case and reduced the assessment from P5,028.00 to P176.00. The order in question (Memorandum Order No. V-634 dated July 3, 1956) was applicable only to subordinate officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and could not bind the Commissioner himself, who has been entrusted by law to make final assessments. The Commissioner cannot delegate this power to make a final assessment to his subordinate. Delegatus non potest delegare; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty on another. The existence of the alleged error is, therefore, denied.1äwphï1.ñët
WHEREFORE, the decision is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., and Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
