Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Casas+Architects, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2601. January 8, 2024.] (C.T.A. Case No. 10058) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. CASAS+ARCHITECTS, INC. , respondent . RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID , J p : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed through registered mail on July 31, 2023, and received by the Court on August 3, 2023, with respondent's Opposition 2 (re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) filed through registered mail on August 17, 2023, and received by the Court on August 30, 2023. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision 3 promulgated on July 7, 2023 (assailed Decision) , the dispositive portion of which reads: HTcADC WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed D ecisio n dated July 9, 2021 and Amended Decision dated March 15, 2022 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. In asking for a reconsideration, petitioner maintains that: 1. The Petition for Review filed by [respondent] seeking the refund of Php9,989,997.00 representing its alleged excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWT) for taxable year 2016 was filed out of time; 2. Proof of actual remittance of alleged withholding taxes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is indispensable to establish respondent's entitlement to CWT refund; and, 3. Tax refunds are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. Hence, entitlement to tax refund must be duly proven. By way of an Opposition , respondent counters that the issues raised by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration were already passed upon and pronounced without merit by the Court En Banc in its assailed Decision . Hence, there being no additional argument substantial enough to warrant modification of the assailed Decision , petitioner's motion must be denied, says respondent. Petitioner's motion must fail. Indeed, all the arguments raised by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration merely mimic the same flawed assertions in his Petition for Review , all of which have been determined and passed upon, first by the Court in Division and subsequently on appeal by the Court En Banc . Petitioner failed to advance any new or substantial reason to justify a departure from the previous conclusion and findings of the Court. WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (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 G. Ferrer-Flores and Henry S. Angeles, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. En Banc (EB) Docket, pp. 101-108. 2. EB Docket, pp. 114-119. 3. EB Docket, pp. 80-96.