Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Altus Angeles, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2524. January 26, 2024.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9164) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. ALTUS ANGELES, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID , J p : For resolution is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 14 August 2023) filed on September 4, 2023, 1 with respondent Altus Angeles, Inc.'s Comment/Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 August 2023) 2 filed on October 16, 2023. HTcADC Petitioner assails the Decision dated August 14, 2023 (assailed Decision) with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Amended Decision dated September 30, 2020, and the Resolution dated July 8, 2021, of the Court's Third Division in CTA Case No. 9164 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. Petitioner argues that the authority of the revenue officers to investigate respondent's tax liabilities was not raised in respondent's Petition for Review. Hence, the petitioner's basic right to fair play and due process was violated when the Court granted a relief not prayed for by respondent. Petitioner insists that the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and assessment notices (FANs) are valid as they fixed and set the deficiency tax liabilities, surcharge, and interest. The FLD and FANs also complied with the requisites provided in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as they stated the facts, the law, the rules and regulations, or the jurisprudence on which it was based. For its part, respondent counters that this motion for reconsideration is a rehash of the arguments previously set forth that the Court had already considered, making the same pro forma . Since petitioner has not raised any compelling argument to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, which is supported by facts and jurisprudence, the instant motion must be denied for lack of merit. The instant Motion fails to convince. Petitioner's arguments are mere reiterations of those raised in his Petition for Review, which have already been addressed, exhaustively discussed, and passed upon by the Court En Banc . As such, the Court En Banc need not belabor to discuss anew its ruling in the assailed Decision. Petitioner clearly failed to "raise matters which are substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive" 3 to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision . At any rate, the Court En Banc maintains that the FLD/FANs without due dates for payment are null and void. WHEREFORE , petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 14 August 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. CAIHTE (SGD.) LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, Corazon F. Ferrer-Flores and Henry S. Angeles, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. En Banc Docket, pp. 136-148. 2. Id. , pp. 151-154. 3. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr., et al. v. Commission on Elections, represented by Hon. Chairman Jose Melo, et al. , G.R. No. 188456, February 10, 2010.