Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v.

CIR
G.R. No. 151857
April 28, 2005

FACTS:
Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing industrial and
household appliances. Petitioner company filed a amended corporate annual income tax
return on June 4, 1996. It continued to report quarterly payments for the second and third
quarters of 1995. On April 10, 1997, it filed for a refund representing excess or unused
creditable withholding taxes for 1995 (not the previous year 1996). For petitioner companys
side it presented documentary and testimonial evidence while Respondent presented the
revenue officer who conducted the examination of petitioners claim and found petitioner
liable for deficiency value added tax.

The CA denied the claim for refund stating that there was no evidence other than
that presented before the CTA was adduced to prove the excess tax payments made in
1995.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA gravely erred while requiring petitioner to submit its 1996 annual
income tax return to support its claim for refund, ignored the existence of the tax return
extant on the record the authenticity opposed by the CIRYES

HELD:
The truth or falsity of the contents of or entries in the 1996 final adjustment return which
has not been formally offered in evidence and examined is a question of fact. A a
general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records
in other cases tried or pending before the same judge, the rule admits of exceptions, as
when reference to such records is sufficiently made without objection from the opposing
parties. Admissibility is one thing and weight is another. To admit evidence and not to
believe it are not incompatible with each other. Mere allegations by petitioner of the
figures in its 1996 final adjustment return are not sufficient proof of the amount of its
refund entitlement. They do not even constitute evidence adverse to respondent.