ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs CIR

G.R. No. 175097

FACTS: On April 30, 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary
Assessment oti!e (PA) to petitioner Allied Ban"in# $orporation for defi!ien!y
%o!umentary &tamp 'a( (%&') in the amount ofP)2,0*0,*+*,-0 and .ross Re!eipts 'a(
(.R') in the amount of P3/,++*,2+-,0- on industry issue for the ta(a1le year
200),
-
Petitioner re!eived the PA on 2ay )/, 2004 and filed a protest a#ainst it on 2ay 20,
2004,
0
On 3uly )-, 2004, the BIR 4rote a 5ormal 6etter of %emand 4ith Assessment oti!es
to petitioner, 4hi!h partly reads as follo4s7
/
It is re8uested that the a1ove defi!ien!y ta( 1e paid immediately upon
re!eipt hereof, in!lusive of penalties in!ident to delin8uen!y, This is our
final decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal the
final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said
deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.
Petitioner re!eived the 5ormal 6etter of %emand 4ith Assessment oti!es on Au#ust 30,
2004,
+
On &eptem1er 2+, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Revie4
)0
4ith the $'A On
%e!em1er 0, 2004, respondent $IR filed his Ans4er,
)2
On 3uly 2/, 200*, he filed a 2otion to
%ismiss
)3
on the #round that petitioner failed to file an administrative protest on the 5ormal
6etter of %emand 4ith Assessment oti!es, On O!to1er )2, 200*, the 5irst %ivision of the
$'A rendered a Resolution
)*
#rantin# respondent9s 2otion to %ismiss, On 5e1ruary 22,
200-, petitioner appealed the dismissal to the $'A :n Ban!,'he $'A n !anc de!lared that
it is a1solutely ne!essary for the ta(payer to file an administrative protest in order for the
$'A to a!8uire ;urisdi!tion,
Issue: Whether or not petitioners appeal to CTA should be dismissed for failure to
protest the final assessment notices of the BIR
RULING: In the instant !ase, petitioner timely filed a protest after re!eivin# the PA, In
response thereto, the BIR issued a 5ormal 6etter of %emand 4ith Assessment oti!es,
Pursuant to &e!tion 22/ of the IR$, the proper re!ourse of petitioner 4as to dispute the
assessments 1y filin# an administrative protest 4ithin 30 days from re!eipt thereof,
Petitioner, ho4ever, did not protest the final assessment noti!es, Instead, it filed a Petition
for Revie4 4ith the $'A, 'hus, if 4e stri!tly apply the rules, the dismissal of the Petition for
Revie4 1y the $'A 4as proper,
<o4ever, a !areful readin# of the 5ormal 6etter of %emand 4ith Assessment oti!es leads
us to a#ree 4ith petitioner that the instant !ase is an e(!eption to the rule on e(haustion of
administrative remedies, i.e., estoppel on the part of the administrative a#en!y !on!erned,
=e find the $IR estopped from !laimin# that the filin# of the Petition for Revie4 4as
premature 1e!ause petitioner failed to e(haust all administrative remedies, It appears from
the fore#oin# demand letter that the $IR has already made a final de!ision on the matter and
that the remedy of petitioner is to appeal the final de!ision 4ithin 30 days,