Marionnaud Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1602. August 1, 2018.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8807) MARIONNAUD PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION MANAHAN , J p : Before the Court En Banc is a Petition for Review, 1 pursuant to Rule 8, Section 3 (b) 2 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), seeking the reversal of the Decision and Resolution, dated September 14, 2016 and February 8, 2017, respectively of the Court's First Division. The assailed Decision and Resolution denied petitioner Marionnaud Philippines, Inc.'s claim for refund of alleged excess and unutilized creditable withholding tax (CWT) for calendar year ending December 31, 2011, amounting to Php26,800,481.00. HTcADC The Facts Petitioner Marionnaud Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation incorporated under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines on August 10, 2006, with principal office at SM Mall of Asia, Units 2134 and 2139 Main Mall Building, SM Central Business Park, Bay City, Pasay City. 3 Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) empowered to perform the duties of the said office, including, among others, the power to decide approve, and grant refunds or tax credits of erroneously or excessively paid taxes as provided by law. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 4 On April 30, 2012, petitioner manually filed its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for calendar year 2011 with the BIR. Thereafter on July 30, 2012, petitioner filed its Enhanced Annual Income Tax Return (BIR Form No. 1702) through electronic mail. 5 On May 16, 2013, petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund of its alleged unutilized creditable withholding taxes in the amount of Php26,800,481.00 before the BIR Large Taxpayers Service. 6 On April 15, 2014, petitioner filed its Petition for Review docketed as CTA Case No. 8807. 7 After trial, the Court in Division denied petitioner's claim for refund due to petitioner's failure to substantiate its excess credits for the entire prior year, and the claimed CWT not being enough to cover its income tax due. The dispositive portion states: CAIHTE WHEREFORE ,in view of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . 8 The Court in Division also denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 14 September 2016) or in the alternative, Motion for New Trial, filed on September 30, 2016. Thus, in the Resolution 9 dated February 8, 2017, the dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE ,all the foregoing considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 14 September 2016) or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . 10 On February 24, 2017, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review. 11 Despite notice, 12 respondent failed to file his comment. 13 Thus, the instant case was deemed submitted for decision on July 18, 2017. Issue 14 Whether petitioner is entitled to, and should be granted, a tax refund or, in the alternative, be issued a tax credit certificate (TCC), for the excess and unutilized CWT for the calendar year ended December 31, 2011 in the amount of Php26,800,481.00 pursuant to Section 76 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner states that it has complied with all the essential conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of CWT when: (1) it complied with the two-year prescriptive period for filing its administrative and judicial claims; (2) it was able to establish the fact of withholding by the submission of the correspondent Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307);and, (3) it was able to show in its 2011 Annual ITR that the income received was declared as part of the gross income. Petitioner also states that it is not required to substantiate its prior year's excess CWT in the amount of Php42,631,744.00. Petitioner asserts that since respondent did not contest nor allege any false declaration in petitioner's 2011 Annual ITR, the entries contained therein are taken as true and correct without need of further proof. Petitioner further states that it was prevented from presenting its documents for prior years due to several factors, but that it is now ready and willing to present its additional evidence to support or establish its prior year's excess tax credits amounting to Php42,631,744.00. Ruling of the Court The petition lacks merit. aScITE The Court En Banc has jurisdiction over the present petition. The Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, on February 8, 2017, which was received by petitioner on February 9, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 4, Section 2 (a) (1), 15 in relation to Rule 8, Section 3 (b) of the RRCTA, petitioner had fifteen (15) days or until February 24, 2017 within which to file its petition for review. On February 24, 2017, petitioner timely filed the instant Petition for Review, hence, the Court En Banc has jurisdiction. There is no compelling reason to reverse or modify the Court in Division's Decision and Resolution. In evaluating petitioner's claim for refund, the Court in Division held that the following requisites must be sufficiently established: 1. The claim for refund must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period as provided under Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the NIRC; 2. The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and 3. The income upon which the taxes were withheld must be declared as part of the gross income of the recipient. 16 1st requisite The Court in Division found that petitioner satisfactorily complied with the two-year prescriptive period, as follows: Here, petitioner allegedly filed its Enhanced Annual Income Tax Return for calendar year 2011 through electronic mail on April 16, 2012, pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 15-2012 of the BIR. However, a closer scrutiny of the said document would reveal that the same was filed on July 30, 2012, as evidenced by Reference No. 121200006188470. Counting from July 30, 2012, petitioner had until July 30, 2014 within which to file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund. Consequently, petitioner's administrative claim for refund filed on May 16, 2013 and the subsequent appeal via Petition for Review filed before this Court on April 15, 2014 were timely filed. 17 (Citations omitted) 2nd requisite Anent the second requisite, the Court in Division found that only the amount of Php26,300,775.03 (out of the claimed Php26,800,481.00) were sufficiently supported. The amount was arrived at based on the report of the independent certified public accountant (ICPA) and the Court's own verification computed below: DETACa Claimed CWT P26,800,481.00 Less: Disallowances Per Independent CPA Report Overclaimed CWT P4,032.00 Per this Court's further verification 495,673.97 499,705.97 Substantiated CWT P26,300,775.03 Petitioner no longer questions the Court's findings regarding the 1st and 2nd requisites. 3rd requisite With respect to the 3rd requirement that the "income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in the return of the recipient," the Court in Division ruled in the negative. Going into the third requisite, a closer perusal of the creditable withholding tax certificates reveal that the claimed CWT of P26,800,481.00 was withheld from petitioner's income of P2,675,070,728.00; while the income reported in its ITR amounts to P2,642,980,052.08, which consists of the following: xxx xxx xxx Apparently, the income per CWT certificates is higher by P32,090,675.92 (P2,675,070,728.00 less P2,642,980,052.08) as compared to the income reported per return. Petitioner failed to fully account for this discrepancy. Moreover, petitioner did not present a detailed schedule of its sales/income with corresponding creditable withholding taxes so that the Court May verify and trace whether the income payments relating to the claimed CWTs were indeed part of the income as per petitioner's ITR. It is in this light that petitioner fell short in complying with the third requisite for the grant of its claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate. In contesting this finding, petitioner alleges that the discrepancy arose from timing differences, to wit : 39. The discrepancy noted resulting from the comparison of the income per CWT Certificates versus the income per 2011 Annual ITR would only mean that there were tax credits claimed in 2011 in which the related income was reported in the previous year, or during 2010. HEITAD xxx xxx xxx 41. Petitioner only claims tax credits in its income tax return when it is duly supported by CWT Certificates. Thus, while the income was already recorded in the previous year, which, in this case, is during 2010, the corresponding CWT thereof was only claimed in 2011 as it is only during this time that Petitioner received the CWT Certificates from its customers. This "timing difference" observed by the Petitioner in the reporting of its income and tax credits explains the discrepancy observed by the CTA-First Division. 42. The difference of P32,090,052.08 pertains to Petitioner's income obtained prior to 2011. Necessarily, Petitioner will no longer report this amount as income on its 2011 Annual ITR despite the same being duly supported by CWT Certificates recorded for the year 2011, considering that the CWT Certificates pertaining to the amount of P32,090,052.08 belatedly given by Petitioner's customers properly corresponds to income obtained and already reported to the BIR during prior years. 43. Verily, the observed discrepancy should not result in the disallowance of the entire amount claimed as tax credit. If at all, only the tax credit pertaining to the difference should be disallowed for being "out of period." 18 The Court En Banc finds no merit in petitioner's arguments. This allegation of timing difference was not sufficiently proven by petitioner. Petitioner's evidence does not show which part of petitioner's income, subjected to withholding and covered by CWT Certificates, was reported in 2010 and 2011. This failure to reconcile the discrepancy between the income per its income tax return and the income in its CWT Certificates or SAWT is fatal to its claim. The Supreme Court explained: Here, it is undisputed that the claim for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period prescribed under Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997 and that the taxpayer was able to present its certificates of creditable tax withheld from its payor. However, records show that petitioner failed to reconcile the discrepancy between income payments per its income tax return and the certificate of creditable tax withheld . A perusal of the certificate of tax withheld would reveal that petitioner earned P146,355,699.80. On the contrary, its annual income tax return reflects a gross income from film rentals in the amount of P145,381,568.00. However, despite the P974,131.80 difference, both the certificate of taxes withheld and income tax return filed by petitioner for taxable year 1999 indicate the same amount of P7,317,785.00 as creditable tax withheld. What's more, petitioner failed to present sufficient proof to allow the Court to trace the discrepancy between the certificate of taxes withheld and the income tax return . Parenthetically, the Office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that the amount of income payments in the income tax return must correspond and tally to the amount indicated in the certificate of withholding, since there is no possible and efficacious way by which the BIR can verify the precise identity of the income payments as reflected in the income tax return . aDSIHc Therefore, petitioner's claim for tax refund for taxable year 1999 must be denied, since it failed to prove that the income payments subjected to withholding tax were declared as part of the gross income of the taxpayer . 19 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) For the foregoing, the Court En Banc affirms the conclusion that petitioner failed to comply with the third requisite. Prior year's excess credits Finally, the Court in Division ruled that petitioner failed to establish that it has excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes, as follows: An examination of petitioner's Annual ITR for CY 2011 would show that petitioner had tax credits in the total amount of P69,432,225.07, consisting of the prior year's excess credits in the amount of P42,631,744.00 and creditable taxes withheld during the year 2011 in the amount of P26,800,481.07 (P24,353,317.47 plus P2,447,163.60).Petitioner's income tax due of P37,503,008.90 was paid using a portion of its prior year's excess credits of P42,631,744.00, leaving prior year's excess credits of P5,128,735.10 and creditable taxes withheld during 2011 in the amount of P26,800,481.07, or a total of P31,929,216.17 unutilized as of December 31, 2011, as shown below: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner indicated its intention to be refunded by marking the option "To be refunded" in its Annual ITR for CY 2011. Petitioner carried over in its Annual ITR for CY 2012 only the amount of P5,128,735.25 (difference due to rounding off) as the prior year's excess credits, while the creditable taxes withheld for CY 2011 in the amount of P26,800,481.07 were not carried over in the succeeding taxable years and were claimed for refund. However, considering that petitioner failed to substantiate its excess credits for the entire prior year in the amount of P42,631,744.00, the same cannot be applied against its income tax due for CY 2011. Hence, the income tax liability of P37,503,008.90 shall be totally offset against the claimed CWTs of P26,800,481.07. As the claimed CWT is not enough to cover its income tax due for CY 2011, petitioner still has income tax liability of P10,702,527.83 (P37,503,008.90 less P26,800,481.07).As a result, petitioner has no excess creditable withholding taxes available for refund. It is for this reason that petitioner's subject refund claim shall be disallowed. 20 ATICcS Petitioner argues it is not required to substantiate its prior year's excess CWT with CWT Certificates or BIR Form No. 2307. Petitioner asserts that detailed proof of the truthfulness of each and every item in the income tax return is not required, and that the entries made in its 2011 Annual ITR, including its prior year's excess withholding tax credits are true and correct without further need of proof. Petitioner also points out that respondent did not contest nor allege any false declaration in petitioner's 2011 Annual ITR. The Court En Banc finds no merit in petitioner's arguments. First, the Court En Banc finds nothing in the assailed Decision wherein petitioner was required to prove its prior year's excess CWT by presenting the CWT Certificates. Rather, the Court in Division merely found that petitioner failed to substantiate its excess credits for the entire prior year, 21 without mentioning as to which evidence to present to establish said amount. This is so because the Court in Division is unaware as to the composition of the said amount. It would be unbecoming to specifically require the BIR Form No. 2307 because the said amount of prior year's excess credits could have arisen, not only because of excess creditable withholding tax, but also for other reasons, such as excess quarterly income tax payments in a specific year or previous years. Second, petitioner's prior year's excess CWT must be proved by sufficient evidence, pursuant to the jurisprudential principle that a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. 22 Thus, even when respondent did not, or failed to, refute the refund claim, it does not follow that the tax refund must already be granted. Furthermore, the failure of respondent to exercise the power to examine tax returns does not create a presumption in favor of the correctness thereof. The Supreme Court stated: Entitlement to a tax refund is for the taxpayer to prove and not for the government to disprove . xxx xxx xxx Moreover, the fact that petitioner failed to present any evidence or to refute the evidence presented by respondent does not ipso facto entitle the respondent to a tax refund. It is not the duty of the government to disprove a taxpayer's claim for refund. Rather, the burden of establishing the factual basis of a claim for refund rests on the taxpayer . And while the petitioner has the power to make an examination of the returns and to assess the correct amount of tax, his failure to exercise such powers does create a presumption in favor of the correctness of the returns. The taxpayer must still present substantial evidence to prove his claim for refund. As we have said, there is no automatic grant of a tax refund . ETHIDa Hence, for failing to prove its entitlement to a tax refund, respondent's claim must be denied. Since tax refunds partake the nature of tax exemptions, which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, evidence in support of a claim must likewise be strictissimi scrutinized and duly proven . 23 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Finally, it must be emphasized that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the government. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken. Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government. 24 The claimants have the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of its claim for refund or tax credit. 25 In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc finds no cogent reason to reverse or modify the findings of the Court in Division. WHEREFORE ,the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr.,Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. ,concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. ,with Concurring Opinion. Lovell R. Bautista, J. ,with Dissenting Opinion. Separate Opinions DEL ROSARIO , P.J.,concurring opinion : It is settled that in order to be entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate representing any excess or unutilized creditable withholding tax, a claimant must prove that it has complied with the following essential requirements set forth under pertinent provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, its implementing revenue regulations, and existing jurisprudence, viz. : (1) The claim is filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax; TIADCc (2) It is shown on the return of the claimant that the income payment received was declared as part of its gross income; and, (3) The fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee (claimant) showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom. I concur with the ponencia's finding that petitioner failed to comply with the second requisite for the refund of its 2011 excess creditable withholding tax, that is, "the income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in the return of the recipient." On the other hand, in my Concurring Opinion to the assailed Resolution dated February 8, 2017, I took the position that the entry in petitioner's 2011 Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) as to the amount of its prior year's excess credits of Php42,631,744.00 is sufficient to prove the existence thereof. The third requisite of substantiating the fact of withholding with certificates or other relevant documents applies only to the excess creditable withholding tax which is the subject of the claim for refund and not to prior year's excess credits .Hence, I was of the opinion that petitioner's failure to substantiate said entry with other supporting documents should not result in the denial of its claim for refund. In view, however, of the very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Commi ssioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cebu Holdi ngs, Inc. , 1 I am constrained to reconsider my position. In C ebu Holdings, I nc. ,the Supreme Court sustained the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) requiring the substantiation of prior year's excess credits in a claim for refund of excess creditable withholding tax. Pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Ce bu Holdings, I nc. state: "x x x. It should be stressed that the amount of P16,194,108.00 is the remaining portion of the claimed prior year's excess credits in the amount of P30,150,767.00 after deducting the P13,956,659.00 tax due in respondent's amended ITR for taxable year 2002. But the CTA First Division categorically ruled that respondent (petitioner therein) failed to substantiate its prior year's excess credits of P30,150,767.00 except for the amount of P288,076.04, which can be applied against respondent's income tax liability for taxable year 2002 .x x x, xxx xxx xxx x x x. To reiterate, the CTA First Division already ruled that respondent (petitioner therein) failed to substantiate its prior year's excess credits of P30,150,767.00 except the amount of P288,076.04, which can be applied against respondent's income tax liability for taxable year 2002 .Thus, since respondent's prior year's excess credits have already been fully applied against its 2002 income tax liability, the P16,194,108.00 unsubstantiated tax credits in taxable year 2002 could no longer be carried over and applied against its income tax liability for taxable year 2003." (Boldfacing supplied) In other words, the claimant's duly substantiated prior year's excess credits shall be applied against its income tax liability during the year of the claim and if insufficient, the duly substantiated withholding tax credits which are the subject of the claim for refund shall be applied on the balance thereof. cSEDTC All told, I CONCUR with the ponencia . BAUTISTA , J.,dissenting opinion : With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, I must dissent on the Decision. The ponencia affirmed the findings of the Court in Division that since the income reported in petitioner's 2011 Annual Income Tax Return ("ITR") does not tie-up with the income reported per Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents ("SAWT"),petitioner failed to prove that the income payments relating to the claimed creditable withholding taxes ("CWTs") were indeed part of the income as per petitioner's ITR. According to the ponencia ,the failure of petitioner to reconcile the discrepancy between the income per its ITR and the income per SAWT is fatal to its claim. I courteously disagree. Section 2.58.3 of Re venue Regulations ("RR") No. 2-1 998 1 governs the rule on claiming for tax credit or refund of CWT, the pertinent portion of which states as follows: SEC. 2.58.3. Claim for Tax Credit or Refund . xxx xxx xxx (B) Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditable income tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course only when it is shown that the income payment received has been part of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. Proof of remittance is responsibility of the withholding agent. 2 Clearly, the income from which the tax has been withheld must form part of the gross income of the income recipient. Nevertheless, the rule does not require that the income must be reported in the same period that the refund or tax credit certificate ("TCC") is claimed. I humbly submit that as long as the related income was reported in the return of the income recipient, even if not reported in the same year when the claim for tax refund or TCC was made, there is no reason to deny the claim. Besides, a careful scrutiny of the Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") Report 3 and the related supporting documents reveals that petitioner reported the income related to the CWT subject of the claim for refund or TCC. ICPA Marcos T. Lim testified through his judicial affidavit 4 as follows: AIDSTE Q: What other matter did you look into in relation to your examination regarding the Petitioner's claim for refund? A: We also had to determine whether Petitioner reported the income it generated in relation to the creditable withholding tax. Q: How did you go about determining the same? A: We studied Petitioner's SAWT, 2011 Annual Income Tax Return and BIR Form No. 2307 for the calendar year 2011 issued by the respective withholding agents. We made comparisons as to the entries found in the said documents. This is indicated on paragraphs 4 to 5, pages 5 to 6 of our Report. Q: After the examination of the aforementioned documents, what did you find out? A: We determined that Petitioner reported the income related to the creditable withholding tax being claimed as refund in the instant case which they generated for the calendar year 2011 . 5 Further, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the ICPA Report states the following: 6 1. We compared the total amount of the Petitioner's creditable withholding taxes for the calendar year 2011 as shown in the Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents of Income Payments subjected to Tax Withheld at Source (previously marked as Annexes P-7-a to P-7-1) prepared by the Petitioner with the amounts of creditable withholding taxes reported in the Petitioner's Annual Income Tax Return for the calendar year 2011. The total amount of creditable withholding taxes reported in the Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents of Income Payments subjected to Tax Withheld at Source (previously marked as Annexes P-7-a to P-7-1) for the calendar year 2011 in the amount of [Php]26,800,431 is equal to the amount reported in the Petitioner's Annual Income Tax Return for the calendar year 2011. xxx xxx xxx 2. We examined the Petitioner's Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307) for the calendar year 2011. Attached herewith are copies of these BIR Form No. 2307 marked as Exhibits P-19-a to P-19-aa, Exhibits P-20-a to P-20-bb, Exhibits P-21-a to P-21-x, and Exhibits P-22-a to P-22-m. SDAaTC xxx xxx xxx 3. We determined that the related income pertaining to the sale of high-end or luxury goods such as but not limited to jewelry, branded or designer clothing and footwear, wearing apparel, leisure and sporting goods, electronics, perfumes, cosmetics and other personal effects on wholesale/retail basis corresponding to the creditable withholding taxes were reported as part of the Petitioner's gross income subject to income tax for the calendar year 2011 . xxx xxx xxx 7 The testimony of the ICPA, who categorically stated that the income related to the CWTs subject of the claim for refund were reported by petitioner in its returns, cannot be discounted. Further, respondent did not refute such claim. I humbly submit that unless it is shown that petitioner did not in fact report the income corresponding to the tax that is the subject of the claim for refund or the issuance of a TCC, the claim should not be denied. If at all, the discrepancy found by the Court in Division may be attributed to the timing of withholding by petitioner's customers, and consequently, the issuance of the related BIR Forms No. 2307. Section 2.58 of R R No. 2-19 98 provides: (B) Withholding tax statement for taxes withheld . Every payor required to deduct or withhold taxes under these regulations shall furnish, in triplicate, each payee, whether individual or corporate, with a withholding tax statement, using the prescribed form (BIR Form No. 2307) showing the income payments made and the amount of taxes withheld therefrom, for every month of the quarter, within twenty (20) days following the close of the taxable quarter employed by the payee in filing his/its quarterly income tax return .The payor, nonetheless, should always retain a copy of duly issued BIR Form No. 2307. Failure to furnish the same shall be a ground for the mandatory audit of payor's income tax liabilities (including withholding tax) upon verified complaint of the payee. xxx xxx xxx 8 Thus, there may arise a situation wherein the withholding tax certificates, i.e. ,BIR Forms No. 2307, may be issued (and thus received by income recipient) even beyond the period where the related income was earned. Nonetheless, such timing difference does not equate to non-reporting of the related income in the return of the petitioner, in compliance with the third requirement, before one can be entitled for a refund. Most importantly, it cannot be denied that petitioner paid taxes, which it now opts to be refunded, as evidenced by duly issued BIR Forms No. 2307. It is to be noted that BIR Form No. 2307 is a withholding tax statement required to be issued by every payor obliged to deduct and withhold taxes, showing the income payments made and the amounts of taxes withheld therefrom. Thus, to deny petitioner's claim on the ground that the income corresponding to the taxes withheld per SAWT does not tally with the income reported in the 2011 Annual ITR is patently erroneous. Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the Petition for Review. AaCTcI Footnotes 1. Rollo ,pp. 1-47. 2. Rule 8. Procedure in Civil Cases Section 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. xxx xxx xxx (b) A party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. 3. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, pp. 50-51. 4. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 51. 5. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 51. 6. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 51. 7. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 51. 8. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 67. 9. Rollo ,pp. 71-79. 10. Rollo ,Resolution dated February 8, 2017, p. 79. 11. Rollo ,pp. 1-47. 12. Rollo ,Resolution dated March 23, 2017, pp. 523-524. 13. Rollo ,Records Verification dated July 3, 2017, p. 525. 14. Rollo ,Petition for Review (PFR),p. 15. 15. Rule 4. Jurisdiction of the Court Sec. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc . The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (1) Cases arising from administrative agencies Bureau of Internal Revenue, x x x. 16. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, pp. 60-61, citing Citibank N.A. v. Court of Appeals, et al. ,G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997; ACCRA Investments Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. ,G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991; United International Pictures AB v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. No. 168331, October 11, 2012; Republic v. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation) , G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015; and Section 2.58, Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended. 17. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 62. 18. Rollo ,PFR, pp. 29-30. 19. United International Pictures AB v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. No. 168331, October 11, 2012. 20. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, pp. 66-67. 21. Rollo ,Decision dated September 14, 2016, p. 67. 22. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007; Refer also to Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation , G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005; and Dizon v. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008. 23. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East Bank & Trust Company (now Bank of Philippine Islands) , G.R. No. 173854, March 15, 2010. 24. Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010. 25. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ,G.R. No. 174212, October 20, 2010. DEL ROSARIO, P.J.,concurring opinion: 1. G.R. No. 189792, July 2, 2018. BAUTISTA, J.,dissenting opinion: 1. Imp lementing Republic Act No. 8 424, "An Act Amending the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended" Relative to the Withholding on Income Subject to the Expanded Withholding Tax and Final Withholding Tax, Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation, Withholding of Creditable Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes, April 17, 1998. 2. Underscoring ours. 3. Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") Report. 4. Records, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-10," Judicial Affidavit ,pp. 890-891. 5. Underscoring ours. 6. ICPA Report ,pp. 5-6. 7. Underscoring ours. 8. Underscoring ours.