Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bisazza Philippines, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1870. February 3, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9372) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. BISAZZA PHILIPPINES, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : For resolution is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Decision dated 02 September 2019" 1 filed on September 23, 2019, praying for the reversal and setting aside of the Court En Banc's Decision dated September 2, 2019, with Bisazza Philippines, Inc.'s "COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 September 2019)" 2 filed on October 25, 2019. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: ATICcS " WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated March 7, 2018 and Resolution dated May 21, 2018, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 9372 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED ." Petitioner's arguments: In his Motion , petitioner reiterates his argument that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case. Allegedly, the subject assessment has become final, executory and demandable for failure of respondent to submit the supporting documents within the sixty-day period from the filing of its protest. Petitioner likewise claims that the revenue officers assigned to continue the audit were duly authorized without need to issue a new Letter of Authority (LOA); and that the assessment issued pursuant the said audit examination are valid and binding. Finally, petitioner argues that assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith and that the burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the CIR is wrong but that the taxpayer is right. Respondent's arguments: In its Comment/Opposition, respondent claims that the instant Motion is a mere rehash of petitioner's submissions. Respondent further contends that the revenue officers who conducted the audit investigation were not authorized through an LOA. As such, the subject deficiency tax assessment is allegedly a nullity. Furthermore, respondent submits that the right to collect the deficiency tax has already prescribed. Lastly, petitioner did not allegedly refute the findings that the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice are null and void for having been issued in violation of respondent's right to due process. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. After a careful examination and consideration of instant Motion for Reconsideration , it is noted that the arguments raised therein are mere reiteration of matters which have already been considered, weighed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Finding no compelling reason to reconsider, modify or reverse Our Decision, We shall no longer belabor in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , I reiterate my Concurring Opinion. Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. , I reiterate my Separate Concurring Opinion. Catherine T. Manahan, J. , I reiterate my Separate Concurring Opinion dated September 2, 2019. Footnotes 1. EB Docket, pp. 134 to 148. 2. EB Docket, pp. 153 to 190.