Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sutherland Global Services Philippines, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1596. August 14, 2018.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8558) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs .SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : For resolution of the Court En Banc is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed through registered mail on March 27, 2018, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (To the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration dated 27 March 2018) filed on June 8, 2018. For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: " WHEREFORE ,the instant Petition for Review is DENIED ,for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision promulgated on July 21, 2016 and Resolution promulgated on January 24, 2017, respectively, are AFFIRMED . EDCcaS SO ORDERED. " 1 In the instant motion, petitioner raised the following arguments: (1) The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals (First Division) has no jurisdiction over the instant case; (2) Assuming that Sutherland Global Services Philippines was entitled to ITH, its claim for refund must still be denied for failure to establish that its income subject of the instant claim for refund was actually derived from its PEZA-registered business activities within the CSEZ; (3) Assuming that Sutherland Global Services Philippines was entitled to ITH, it was exempt from paying income tax only but not other National Internal Revenue Taxes, such as the Value-Added Tax (VAT). The VAT/Percentage Tax Returns for the Fiscal Year Ending on June 30, 2010 must be presented; and (4) Exhibits of Sutherland Global Services Philippines should not be given any probative value for being hearsay evidence. On the other hand, respondent asserts that petitioner merely rehashed his arguments in the Petition for Review dated February 17, 2017. Upon careful review of the pleadings submitted by the parties, the Court En Banc agrees with the observation of respondent. Indeed, a perusal of the instant motion shows that petitioner failed to present new matters that would warrant a modification or reversal of the assailed Decision. With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, the Court En Banc categorically ruled that the two (2)-year period for filing claims for refund is counted from the date of payment of the tax or penalty, as provided for under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. With respect to respondent's income from PEZA-registered business activities, the Court En Banc has thoroughly scrutinized the pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and We see no reason to reverse the conclusion reached by the CTA First Division. Further, it is palpably erroneous for petitioner to insist upon this Court to make a determination whether respondent paid or correctly paid its taxes due, if any, because such determination is tantamount to an assessment at the first instance which is prohibited under the SMI-ED doctrine. Finally, petitioner's assertion that respondent's pieces of evidence are hearsay is unmeritorious, because the Independent CPA who examined the voluminous documents involved in this case issued a certification as to the correctness of his report, in relation to the said documents. ISHaCD Considering petitioner's failure to raise new matters or meritorious arguments, the denial of the instant motion is in order. WHEREFORE ,petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED ,for lack of merit. DHESca SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J.,Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. ,concur. Lovell R. Bautista, J. ,took no part. Footnotes 1. Court En Banc Docket, p. 125.