G&W Architects, Engineers & Project Consultants Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8617. February 17, 2017.] G&W ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & PROJECT CONSULTANTS CO. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 08 November 2016) 1 filed by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on December 15, 2016. HTcADC Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Decision 2 promulgated on November 8, 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review filed by G&W Architects, Engineers & Project Consultants, Co., on March 13, 2013, is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the deficiency income tax and value-added tax assessments issued by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue against petitioner G&W Architects, Engineers & Project Consultants, Co., in the respective amounts of P257,129,633.53 and P89,941,757.61 for calendar year 2006, as well as the Final Notice Before Seizure dated February 8, 2013, are CANCELLED and deemed WITHDRAWN for being VOID . SO ORDERED. In challenging the Court's Decision, respondent raises the following grounds: I. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT RECEIVED THE COPIES OF THE PAN AND FAN. II. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE SUBJECT DEFICIENCY TAX ASSESSMENTS ARE ALREADY FINAL AND DEMANDABLE. In rejecting respondent's bid for reconsideration, petitioner argues as follows: 1. The Motion is pro-forma and thus, it should be denied outright; 2. The Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the subject assessment; and 3. Respondent failed to prove that the notice of assessment was actually received by G&W. Therefore, the assessment was null and void. The Motion for Reconsideration must fail. An assiduous review of the assailed Decision and all the pleadings filed by the parties in the present case reveals that the arguments of respondent are but a reiteration of the arguments which have been amply addressed in the assailed Decision of November 8, 2016. Thus, no compelling reason exists for the Court to modify, much less reverse its ruling. WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 08 November 2016) filed by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on December 15, 2016, is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 1471-1478. 2. Docket, pp. 1450-1470.