Alexander Crisostomo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8672. November 12, 2015.] ALEXANDER CRISOSTOMO as sole proprietor of BIOCARE HEALTH RESOURCES , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS , J p : For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration , 1 filed on September 4, 2015, with respondent's Comment , 2 filed on September 23, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the Court received petitioner's Reply (to Respondent's Comment Dated 21 September 2015) , filed through registered mail on October 12, 2015. HTcADC Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, 3 dated August 18, 2015, which disposed of the case as follows: "WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Even considering that the Court has jurisdiction over the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to the immunities provided in the Tax Amnesty Law, the instant Petition for Review should likewise be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence." 4 Petitioner, in his motion, raises the following grounds: 5 I. Whether the assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue against petitioner Biocare Health Resources is void from the beginning based on the following grounds: a. For being based on a mere Letter Notice. b. Since the Preliminary Assessment Notice, Final Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand were signed only by an Officer-in-Charge of the Assistant Regional Director. II. Whether the Deficiency Income Tax and Value Added Tax liabilities of petitioner for year 2004 should be condoned for his availment of Tax Amnesty pursuant to Republic Act No. 9480? On the other hand, respondent argues that the grounds raised by petitioner are the same grounds passed upon and considered in the Decision; that the assessment is already final, executory and demandable; and that the Letter Notice issued against petitioner is considered as a "notice of audit or investigation" under paragraph 3, Section 6 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. 6 aScITE After a careful hard look at petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court finds no reason to reverse its findings that the assessment has become final, demandable and executory. As to petitioner's argument with respect to his availment of tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480, the Court notes that petitioner has attached the photocopies of the following documents: a. Notice of Availment of Tax Amnesty b. Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) c. Tax Amnesty Return (BIR Form No. 2116) d. Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0617) e. Proof of Payment As discussed in the assailed Decision, the finality of the subject tax assessments do not bar petitioner from availment of amnesty under the Tax Amnesty Law of 2007. 7 Therefore, the Court finds that allowing the presentation of the original copies of the documents attached to the instant motion for reconsideration will secure a just and full determination of petitioner's claim. Technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily designed to aid in the administration of justice. And in cases before tax courts, the Rules of Court applies only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient shall be liberally construed in order to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. 8 Nevertheless, it is likewise a well-settled rule that the Court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. 9 Thus, in the interest of substantial justice and to give petitioner the final opportunity to prove its availment of amnesty, the Court shall allow petitioner to present and formally offer the documents mentioned and attached to the instant motion for reconsideration, subject to this Court's final evaluation and/or appreciation. WHEREFORE , let this case be set for hearing for the presentation of the originals of the documents cited and attached to the instant motion for reconsideration on December 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Meanwhile, the resolution of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby HELD IN ABEYANCE until further orders from the Court. HEITAD SO ORDERED . (SGD.) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., J., concurs. Caesar A. Casanova, J., is on leave. Footnotes 1. Docket, pp. 482-491. 2. Docket, pp. 499-501. 3. Docket, pp. 468-481. 4. Docket, pp. 480-481. 5. Docket, p. 483. 6. Docket, p. 499. 7. Docket, p. 480. 8. Philippine Phospate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 141973, June 28, 2005. 9. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.