Skip to main content

Mytel Mobility Solutions Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

C.T.A. Case No. 9786 (Resolution) • Court of Tax Appeals • Decisions • Mar 2, 2021

Full text

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9786. March 2, 2021.] MYTEL MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. (NOW MERGED WITH MY SOLID TECHNOLOGIES & DEVICES CORPORATION) , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , J p : The Case Before this Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, filed by registered mail on 16 October 2020, 1 with petitioner's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated October 12, 2020) ("Comment"), filed on 17 December 2020. 2 In the Motion for Reconsideration, 3 respondent alleges that: 1. The subject deficiency tax assessments are valid because the examining revenue officers, Philip King S. Cartagena and Jose DR. Magsombol III, were duly authorized to conduct the audit of the petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records; and 2. Petitioner's right to due process was not violated considering that it was able to respond to all the notices that were issued or sent to it. In its Comment, 4 petitioner counter-argued as follows: 1. Respondent's deficiency tax assessment against petitioner for CY 2010 are null and void because the revenue officers who conducted the audit investigation had no authority to examine the latter's books of accounts in violation of law and relevant jurisprudence. 2. Respondent violated petitioner's right to due process when he prematurely issued the final assessment notice, thereby depriving the petitioner of its guaranteed 15-day period to file a reply to the preliminary assessment notice. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. Following a studied review of the arguments raised by respondent, it appears that these have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 23 September 2020. The Motion discloses no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. ICHDca WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Records, Vol. 2, pp. 708-718. 2. Records, Vol. 2. 3. Id. , pp. 709-714. 4. Records, Vol. 2.

Ask what this means for your situation

The assistant quotes the passage it relies on and links the source, so you can check every figure it gives you.