First Philec Manufacturing Technologies Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9215. February 2, 2020.] FIRST PHILEC MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION UY , J p : Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed on December 4, 2015 by petitioner, First Philec Manufacturing Technologies Corporation, against respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, praying that judgment be rendered declaring null and void the deficiency income tax assessment under the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) issued against petitioner in the total amount of P11,974,939.94 for taxable year (TY) 2010. THE FACTS Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at Manila East Road, Tikling Road, Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. 2 It is a bonafide Board of Investments (BOI) registered enterprise with Certificate of Income Tax Holiday (ITH) Entitlement No. CE No. 2011-000344 3 for TY 2010. Respondent is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the government agency tasked, among others, to collect all national internal revenue taxes. He has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the Tax Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the BIR. He may be served with summons and other court processes at the 5th Floor, Bureau of Internal Revenue Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 4 Petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax Return (BIR Form No. 1702) TY 2010 on April 28, 2011. 5 On October 7, 2014, petitioner received a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice 6 (PAN) dated October 2, 2014, stating that after investigation, petitioner has been found liable for deficiency income tax for TY 2010 in the total amount of Ten Million Nine Hundred Thousand Two Hundred Forty Eight and 45/100 (P10,900,248.45). 7 On October 22, 2014, respondent received a Reply to the PAN 8 from petitioner praying for the cancellation of the deficiency tax assessment contained in the PAN due to lack of factual and legal bases. On November 13, 2014, petitioner received a copy of Formal Letter of Demand 9 (FLD) with Assessment Notice No. IT-ITH-1104-10-14-1244, assessing petitioner for deficiency income tax in the total amount of Eleven Million Twenty Five Thousand Eighty Six Pesos and 35/100 (P11,025,086.35). On December 10, 2014, petitioner filed a protest 10 to the FLD and Assessment Notice for being void ab initio and ineffectual. The Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated October 28, 2015 11 was received by petitioner on November 6, 2015. 12 In the said FDDA, respondent ordered petitioner to pay the alleged deficiency income tax assessment for TY 2010 in the total amount of P11,974,939.94, broken down as follows: Assessment No. IT-ITH-1104-10-14-1244 Taxable Income/(Loss) per return (892,719.68) Add: Adjustments A. Income not subjected to income tax Professional Fee (Note to FS no. 72) Foreign Exchange Gain Gain on Sale of Property and Equipment Other Income 6,014,534.73 B. General and Administrative Expenses Allocation 10,494,825.34 Total Adjustments 16,509,360.07 Taxable Income/(Loss) after adjustments 15,616,640.39 Add Back Net Operating Loss Carried Over (NOLCO) 892,719.68 Total Taxable Income Per Audit 16,509,360.07 Tax Due (30%) 4,952,808.02 Less: Tax Credits/Payments Prior Year's Excess Credits-Taxes Withheld CWT for the Year Tax paid first 3 quarters MCIT 3,825,565.65 Still Due/(Overpayment) 1,127,242.37 Add Back Carried Over as Tax Credit to Next Year/Qtr. 3,825,565.65 Deficiency Tax Due-Basic 4,952,808.02 Surcharge (50%) 2,476,404.01 Interest 20% p.a. (4.16.11 to 11.15.15 = 1,675 days) 4,545,727.91 Total Deficiency Income Tax P11,974,939.94 ============ Aggrieved by respondent's decision, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review 13 before this Court on December 4, 2015. Respondent filed his Answer 14 on March 8, 2016, interposing special and affirmative defenses, which include, among others, the following, to wit: Section 203 of the NIRC finds no application in the present case; that the instant case squarely falls under the exception established under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Allegedly, after evaluation of petitioner's ITH for 2010-Audited Financial Statements (AFS) and Income Tax Return (ITR), respondent discovered some irregularity which resulted to deficiency income tax. However, the requirement of due process was properly complied with in issuing the FLD and assessment notice; and that the absence of an LOA will not in any case invalidate the assessment duly issued by respondent. Allegedly, petitioner cannot be permitted to enjoy ITH without subjecting itself to respondent's scrutiny; that thereafter, petitioner was found liable to pay its deficiency income tax in the amount of P6,014,534.73. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the commissioner of internal revenue is wrong, but also that the taxpayer is right; and that tax assessments are entitled to the presumption of correctness and made in good faith. The Pre-Trial Conference initially set on May 24, 2016 15 was reset to September 6, 2016 in the Resolution 16 dated May 20, 2016. Respondent filed his Pre-Trial Brief 17 on May 18, 2016; while petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief 18 on May 20, 2016. Meanwhile, on April 19, 2016, respondent filed a Motion to Defer the Transmittal of BIR Records 19 praying that the Court defer the transmittal of the BIR Records until after the filing of his witness' affidavit. The said Motion was granted by the Court in the Resolution 20 dated April 27, 2016 and on May 20, 2016, respondent filed his Compliance 21 transmitting the BIR Records consisting of one (1) folder which was in the Resolution dated June 7, 2016. 22 On September 1, 2016, petitioner filed a "Motion to Cancel Pre-Trial Conference with Motion to Defer Submission of the Judicial Affidavits of Witnesses." 23 Acting on the said Motion in the Order 24 dated September 2, 2016, the Court reset the Pre-Trial Conference to December 6, 2016, with warning that no further postponements shall be allowed. Thereafter, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues within the extension period granted by the Court on January 5, 2017. 25 Upon approval thereof, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order dated February 20, 2017. 26 On May 23, 2017, 27 Atty. Adan T. Delamide was commissioned as an Independent Certified Public Accountant (or ICPA) in this case and his testimony was set on July 10, 2017, together with petitioner's supposed witness, Elmer T. Cortez, Jr. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Manifestation (Re: Submission of Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Adan T. Delamide 28 with attached Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Adan T. Delamide 29 on July 7, 2017. Meanwhile, on July 5, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Substitute Witness and to Admit Judicial Affidavit , 30 praying that it be allowed to substitute Elmer T. Cortes, Jr. (who was no longer connected with petitioner) with another witness, Whilmart A. Camado, Said motion was granted by the Court and Camado testified on direct examination during the hearing held on July 10, 2017. 31 His cross-examination was set for continuation on September 12, 2017, which was however reset to September 19, 2017 because of work suspension in government offices due to typhoon "Maring." Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File and Admit an Amended Judicial Affidavit 32 with attached Amended Judicial Affidavit of Whilmart Dave A. Camado 33 on September 8, 2017. The said Motion was granted and the Amended Judicial Affidavit was admitted on September 19, 2017. 34 Upon conclusion of its presentation of evidence, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence 35 on October 18, 2017, while respondent filed his Comment (Re: Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence) 36 on October 27, 2017. In the Resolution 37 dated January 8, 2018, the Court admitted some of petitioner's evidence but denied several exhibits for the following reasons: failure to submit the duly marked exhibit; for not being found in the records of the case; and for failure to submit originals for comparison. On January 30, 2018, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated January 8, 2018) , 38 praying that the Resolution dated January 8, 2018 be partially reconsidered. In the Resolution 39 dated April 17, 2018, the Court partially granted the said Motion and admitted the denied exhibits except for Exhibit "P-226-4" for not being found in the records of the case. During respondent's presentation of evidence on April 17, 2018, Revenue Officer William F. Sundiam testified as respondent's sole witness. Thereafter, respondent filed his Formal Offer of Evidence 40 on April 27, 2018. On May 21, 2018, petitioner filed its Comment/Objections (To Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence) . 41 In the Resolution 42 dated July 2, 2018, the Court admitted respondent's evidence except Exhibits "R-1", "R-2", "R-5" and "R-12" for failure to present the originals for comparison. On July 20, 2018, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated July 2, 2018 and to Hold in Abeyance the Filing of Memorandum , 43 with petitioner's Comment/Opposition 44 filed on August 17, 2018. In the Resolution 45 dated December 7, 2018, the Court admitted Exhibit "R-1"; however, the admission of Exhibits "R-2", "R-5" and "R-12" was still denied for failure to present the originals for comparison. On December 20, 2018, respondent filed a Tender of Excluded Evidence 46 praying that the denied exhibits be attached and form part of the records of the case. In the Resolution 47 dated February 19, 2019, the Court noted respondent's Tender of Excluded Evidence . On January 8, 2019, respondent filed his Manifestation 48 stating that he is adopting the arguments raised in his Answer dated March 8, 2016 as his Memorandum. The said Manifestation was noted by the Court in the Minute Resolution 49 dated January 11, 2019. On the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum 50 on February 11, 2019. Considering petitioner's Memorandum filed February 11, 2019 and respondent's Manifestation filed on January 8, 2019, the case was submitted for decision in the Resolution 51 dated March 5, 2019. Hence, this Decision. THE ISSUES As stipulated by the parties, the sole issue for this Court's resolution is as follows: "Whether or not Petitioner is liable for deficiency income tax for taxable year 2010 in the aggregate amount of Eleven Million Nine Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Pesos and Ninety Four Centavos (P11,974,939.94), inclusive of interest and penalties." 52 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that the audit was conducted without a Letter of Authority (LOA). Absent the said LOA, any tax examination conducted by respondent and the resulting assessment is allegedly void. Furthermore, the three (3)-year period to assess the alleged deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010 as provided under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997 53 has already prescribed on April 16, 2014; and that no waiver was executed to extend the period of assessment. According to petitioner, the ten (10)-year prescriptive period to assess is not applicable in view of respondent's failure to specifically allege and provide proof of existence or commission of fraud, falsity, or omission by petitioner. Equally important to underscore is the fact that the ground of omission is not applicable in the instant case because petitioner actually filed its Income Tax Return for 2010. Thus, there was no failure to file a return on the part of petitioner to warrant the extension of the period to assess to 10 years. Petitioner also submits that the FLD-FAN is a complete and verbatim copy of the PAN which unmistakably shows respondent's disregard of petitioner's arguments and documents submitted in support of its position in its reply to the PAN and protest to assessment, and in violation of its right to due process. Finally, petitioner maintains that it is not liable for deficiency income tax because it properly reported its Income and Deductions for taxable year 2010 as shown in the findings of the ICPA. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent counter-argues that Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended finds no application in the present case. Allegedly, respondent is well aware of its duty under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997 but also notes that said rule admits certain exception under Section 222 of the same Code, which reads: " Sec. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes . (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof. After evaluating petitioner's Income Tax Holiday for calendar year 2010, Audited Financial Statements and Income Tax Return, some irregularity was allegedly discovered which resulted to deficiency income tax assessment. This deficiency income tax was derived by comparing the amount as stated in the Financial Statement with petitioner's Income Tax Return. To blindly follow the three-year prescriptive period will be a derogation to the duty of respondent and will ultimately result to the prejudice of the government. Thus, respondent insists that he has ten (10) years from the discovery of the omission within which to assess petitioner. Moreover, respondent claims that in compliance with Section 228 of the NIRC, the requirement of due process was properly complied with in issuing the Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAN), and the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) as the same contained the facts and law on which the assessment is based. Attached to the Assessment Notice is the Details of Discrepancies and computations that are sufficient enough to inform the petitioner of the legal and factual bases of the assessment. As regards the absence of an LOA, respondent, submits that the same will not in any case invalidate the assessment duly issued by respondent. Allegedly, petitioner cannot be permitted to enjoy income tax holiday but avoid any assessment related to audit and examination to determine whether the amount as declared in its return are true and correct. Respondent further asserts that petitioner is liable to pay the subject deficiency income tax THE COURT'S RULING We find merit in the instant Petition for Review . RO Sundiam was not authorized through an LOA to conduct the audit investigation, hence, the resulting tax assessment is void . Section 6 (A) of the NIRC of 1997 lays down the power of respondent or his duly authorized representative to authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax, to wit: "SEC. 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make Assessments and Prescribe Additional Requirements for Tax Administration and Enforcement . (A) Examination of Returns and Determination of Tax Due . After a return has been filed as required under the provisions of this Code, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax : Provided, however, That failure to file a return shall not prevent the Commissioner from authorizing the examination of any taxpayer." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) Based on the foregoing, an authority emanating from respondent or his duly authorized representative is required before an examination and an assessment may be made. Relative thereto, Section 13 of the NIRC of 1997 provides that the authority of a revenue officer (RO) to examine or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency tax due must be exercised pursuant to an LOA, to wit: "SEC. 13. Authority of a Revenue Officer . Subject to the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, a Revenue Officer assigned to perform assessment functions in any district may, pursuant to a Letter of Authority issued by the Revenue Regional Director , examine taxpayers within the jurisdiction of the district in order to collect the correct amount of tax, or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency tax due in the same manner that the said acts could have been performed by the Revenue Regional Director himself." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) Evidently, a grant of authority, through an LOA, must be issued assigning a revenue officer to perform tax assessment functions, in order that such officer may examine taxpayers and collect the correct amount of tax, or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency tax due. The importance and significance of an LOA was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 54 (hereinafter referred to as "Medicard case") , invoked by respondent. We quote pertinent discussions thereon, to wit: "An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives. Section 6 of the NIRC clearly provides as follows: SEC. 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make Assessments and Prescribe Additional Requirements for Tax Administration and Enforcement . (A) Examination of Return and Determination of Tax Due. After a return has been filed as required under the provisions of this Code, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax: Provided, however, That failure to file a return shall not prevent the Commissioner from authorizing the examination of any taxpayer. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underlining Ours) Based on the afore-quoted provision, it is clear that unless authorized by the CIR himself or by his duly authorized representative, through an LOA , an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken . The circumstances contemplated under Section 6 where the taxpayer may be assessed through best-evidence obtainable, inventory-taking, or surveillance among others has nothing to do with the LOA. These are simply methods of examining the taxpayer in order to arrive at the correct amount of taxes. Hence, unless undertaken by the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives, other tax agents may not validly conduct any of these kinds of examinations without prior authority . xxx xxx xxx That the BIR officials herein were not shown to have acted unreasonably is beside the point because the issue of their lack of authority was only brought up during the trial of the case. What is crucial is whether the proceedings that led to the issuance of VAT deficiency assessment against MEDICARD had the prior approval and authorization from the CIR or her duly authorized representatives. Not having authority to examine MEDICARD in the first place, the assessment issued by the CIR is inescapably void ." (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Furthermore, respondent, through the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 75-2018, 55 recognized the ruling in the Medicard case, in this wise: "The judicial ruling, invoking a specific statutory mandate, states that no assessments can be issued or no assessment functions or proceedings can be done without the prior approval and authorization of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) or his duly authorized representative, through an LOA . The concept of an LOA is therefore clear and unequivocal. Any tax assessment issued without an LOA is a violation of the taxpayer's right to due process and is therefore 'inescapably void.' xxx xxx xxx To help forestall any unnecessary controversy and to encourage due observance of the judicial pronouncements, any examiner or revenue officer initiating tax assessments or performing assessment functions without an LOA shall be subject to appropriate administrative sanctions." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) It is evident from the foregoing that a grant of authority, through an LOA, is indispensable before an RO can validly examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of a taxpayer. In the absence of an LOA, the tax assessment issued by the BIR against such taxpayer shall be void. In this case, no LOA was issued authorizing the audit investigation of petitioner's internal revenue tax for TY 2010. A perusal of the records shows that the present assessment was triggered when the BIR, through its Audit Information, Tax Exemption and Incentives Division received the result of the BOI's evaluation of petitioner's ITH application for TY 2010, including the docket bearing on the evaluation thereof on May 9, 2014. 56 On June 4, 2014, Erlinda Simple, Assistant Commissioner-Assessment Service, issued a Memorandum 57 forwarding the docket of the case to Nestor Valerosa, Assistant Commissioner-Large Taxpayers Service, for evaluation. A Referral Slip 58 dated June 27, 2014, signed by Cesar D. Escalada, Chief of Regular Large Taxpayers Audit Division (RLTAD) 1, was then issued to RO William Sundiam (RO Sundiam) to take necessary action regarding petitioner's ITH Incentive for the subject period. This was followed by the issuance of Memorandum of Assignment (MOA) 59 with reference number No. ITH-116-2014-1101 dated August 29, 2014, also signed by Cesar D. Escalada, referring the case to RO Sundiam and Group Supervisor Wilfredo Reyes, for the audit/verification of the differential income tax of petitioner for CY 2010. On the basis of the said Referral Slip and MOA, RO Sundiam conducted the audit investigation and thereafter recommended through Memorandum dated September 22, 2014, 60 October 23, 2014 61 and October 9, 2015, 62 the issuance of PAN, FLD and FDDA, respectively. Clearly therefore, the supposed authority of RO Sundiam was based on the Referral Slip and MOA. This was confirmed by RO Sundiam in open court as follows: "ATTY. LIM Q. What was your authority to conduct audit investigation of the present case, Mr. Witness? MR. SUNDIAM A. I received a referral slip from our Chief, the purpose of which is to evaluate the income tax holiday incentive of taxpayer for taxable year 2010. ATTY. LIM Q. Can you identify the referral slip you are referring to? MR. SUNDIAM A: This is on page 76, the referral slip is on page 76. ATTY. LIM Q. Aside from this referral slip, what other authority do you have to conduct audit and examination on the present case? MR. SUNDIAM A: I have received a memorandum of assignment dated August 29, 2014 . ATTY. LIM Q. In this memorandum of assignment found on page 82 of the BIR records, there appears a signature on top of the name William Sundiam, whose signature this is? MR. SUNDIAM A: This is my signature." 63 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) It bears noting that the MOA dated August 29, 2014, offered as Exhibit "R-12", was denied admission by the Court for respondent's failure to present the original for comparison. 64 As such, the Court cannot give credence to the said exhibit. It is basic rule that evidence which has not been admitted cannot be validly considered by the courts in arriving at their judgments. 65 Nonetheless, even if We take into account the said MOA, the same is not a valid source of authority for RO Sundiam to conduct the subject audit investigation since the MOA is not equivalent to an LOA. Records show that no LOA was issued in this case. In fact, respondent's own witness admitted the absence of an LOA during his cross-examination, to wit: "ATTY. TAGRA Q. In your answer to question no. 5, you mentioned in your Judicial Affidavit you were assigned in conducting an audit and investigation on the petitioner, correct? MR. SUNDIAM A. Yes, sir. ATTY. TAGRA Q. Did you have any Letter of Authority from the Commissioner of internal Revenue before you conducted the audit investigation? MR. SUNDIAM A: I do not have. 66 (Emphasis supplied) It is evident, therefore, that RO Sundiam was not authorized under an LOA to conduct the audit investigation or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency taxes against petitioner. Consequently, applying the above-quoted jurisprudential pronouncements in the Medicard case, and consistent with respondent's RMC No. 75-2018 upholding the pronouncement in the Medicard case, the subject tax assessment, which came about as a result of his audit investigation for TY 2010, is void and of no effect. The requirement of issuing an LOA is required for all audit investigation . As regards respondent's contention that the absence of an LOA in this case will not invalidate the subject assessment on the ground that the present case involves the evaluation of petitioner's ITH entitlement and is allegedly not related to regular assessment proceedings, the same is without merit. The requirement of issuing an LOA is required for all audit investigation pursuant to RMO No. 43-90 dated September 20, 1990, which states: "C. Other policies for issuance of L/As. 1. All audits/investigations, whether field or office audit, should be conducted under a Letter of Authority . xxx xxx xxx" (Emphases and underscoring supplied.) The foregoing rule is clear and makes no exemption that all audit/investigations must be conducted under an LOA. In this case, considering that RO Sundiam performed audit examination of petitioner's internal revenue tax for TY 2010 which eventually resulted in the issuance of the subject deficiency income tax assessment, there is no reason for the Court not to apply the requirement of issuing an LOA. It is a general rule of statutory interpretation that provisions should not be given a restricted meaning where no restriction is indicated. Just as the express enumeration of persons, objects, situations, etc., is construed to exclude those not mentioned, according to a well-known maxim, so no distinction should be made when none appears to be intended. This is not an arbitrary rule but one founded on logic. 67 In sum, considering that RO Sundiam was not duly authorized through an LOA, the subject tax assessment covering TY 2010, which came about as a result of his audit investigation, are void. To stress, a void assessment bears no valid fruit. 68 With the foregoing findings, it becomes unnecessary to address the remaining arguments raised by the parties in this case. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, the deficiency income tax assessment in the total amount of P11,974,939.94, for TY 2010, issued against petitioner, are hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE . SO ORDERED . (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, Vol. I, pp. 10 to 41. 2. Par 2, Parties, Petition for Review , Docket Vol I, p. 11. 3. Exhibit "P-3", Docket Vol. 2, p. 601. 4. Par. 1, Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket Vol. 1, p. 352. 5. Exhibit "P-2", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 623 to 634. 6. Exhibit "P-4", BIR Records, pp. 90 to 93. 7. Par. 2, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket Vol. 1, p. 353. 8. Exhibit "P-5", BIR Records, pp. 114 to 118. 9. Exhibit "P-6", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 602 to 606. 10. Exhibit "P-7", BIR Records, pp. 150 to 179. 11. Exhibit "P-1", BIR Records, pp. 190 to 194. 12. Par 3, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket Vol. 1, p. 353. 13. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 41. 14. Docket Vol. 1, 161 to 176. 15. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 177 to 178. 16. Docket Vol. 1, p. 213. 17. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 193 to 197. 18. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 214 to 221. 19. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 185 to 188. 20. Docket Vol. 1, p. 192. 21. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 226 to 227. 22. Docket Vol. 1, p. 231. 23. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 232 to 235. 24. Docket Vol. 1, p. 236. 25. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 352 to 357. 26. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 369 to 374. 27. Docket Vol. 1, p. 414. 28. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 532 to 534. 29. Exhibit "P-20", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 535 ta 547. 30. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 428 to 431. 31. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 552 to 553. 32. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 554 to 557. 33. Exhibit "P-22", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 558 to 570. 34. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 578 to 579. 35. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 580 to 600. 36. Docket Val. 2, pp. 609 to 610. 37. Docket Vol. 2. pp. 613 to 618. 38. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 619 to 622. 39. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 710 to 712. 40. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 716 to 721. 41. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 723 to 732. 42. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 734 to 735. 43. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 736 to 739. 44. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 749 to 754. 45. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 756 to 759. 46. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 760 to 762. 47. Docket Vel. 2, pp. 835 to 836. 48. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 767 to 768. 49. Docket Vol. 2, p. 770. 50. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 788 to 832. 51. Docket Vol. 2, p. 839. 52. Docket Vol. 1, Issue to be Resolved, JSFI, p. 353. 53. Sec. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection . Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day. 54. G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017. 55. SUBJECT: The Mandatory Statutory Requirement and Function of a Letter of Authority. 56. Exhibit "R-4", BIR Records, pp. 70 to 71. 57. BIR Records, p. 74. 58. Exhibit "R-12-a", BIR Records, p. 76. 59. Exhibit "R-12", BIR Records, p. 82. 60. Exhibit "R-6", BIR Records, p. 84. 61. BIR Records, p. 124. 62. Exhibit "R-10", BIR Records, p. 183. 63. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) during the hearing held on April 17, 2018, pp. 6 to 7, 64. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 756 to 759. 65. Dra. Leila A. Dela LLana vs. Rebecca Biong, doing business under the name and style of Pongkay Trading , G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013. 66. TSN during the hearing held on April 17, 2018, p. 9. 67. Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, et al., et seq. , G.R. Nos. L-831, L-876 and L-878, November 21, 1946. 68. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Azucena T. Reyes, et seq. , G.R. Nos. 159694 and 163581, January 27, 2006.