M. Tech Products Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB NO. 2114. October 21, 2021.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9331) M. TECH PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASTAEDA, JR. , J p : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (To the Decision Promulgated on 21 October 2020) ("Assailed Decision") filed on November 24, 2020 and received by the Court on December 3, 2020. The dispositive portion of the October 21, 2020 Decision states: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED . Accordingly, the assailed Decision and the Resolution promulgated on December 11, 2018 and on July 9, 2019, respectively, by the then CTA Special First Division are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. Respondent failed to file his Comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration as stated in the Records Verification Report dated June 14, 2021. As stated in the present motion, "Petitioner adopts and re-pleads all allegations, arguments and discussions raised in its Petition for Review, En Banc, including all previous pleadings, in so far as they are relevant and pertinent herewith." Petitioner alleges that respondent's right to assess and collect taxes has prescribed; that jurisprudence cited not on four-squares; that no estoppel, no in pari delicto , and that a void assessment can be challenged at anytime. This Court finds no valid or cogent reason to deviate from our findings and conclusions reached in our Decision dated October 21, 2020, thus, the motion is denied. We reiterate that "this Court agrees with the CTA Division in applying the Next Mobile case, although there is only one defective waiver, and finding that the parties are in pari delicto ." 1 Thus, we affirm that the waiver resulted in the extension of the period to assess. In this case, CTA Division found that Alas Oplas & Co., CPA had an apparent authority to act for and to bind petitioner. 2 It is clear that "despite being aware of the investigation of its 2010 tax liability and of the alleged unauthorized representation of its internal accountant as early as 2013, petitioner still failed to designate an authorized representative to communicate with the BIR regarding its computed tax deficiencies for taxable year 2010. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that petitioner did not object or even act on the alleged unauthorized representation, considering that Alas Oplas & Co. CP As is still the internal accountant of petitioner." 3 No action was taken by petitioner to prohibit the internal accountant from continuing its representation, 4 and respondent recognized such representation. As such the April 1, 2015 Letter which the internal accountant wrote to the BIR can be considered a Protest Letter to the FAN. Also, the said Letter proves that Mary Grace T. Aguilar as signatory of the subject Waiver is authorized. 5 At this juncture, We emphasize that "this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case, because the protest of petitioner was filed beyond the period allowed by law, and therefore the subject tax assessments have become final, executory and unappealable." 6 WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO C. CASTAEDA, JR. Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro and Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo , JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , p. 108. 2. Id. , p. 24. 3. Id. , p. 49. 4. Id. 5. Id. , 42. 6. Rollo , p. 57.