Implementing Rules and Regulations of E.O. No. 313 (s. 2004)

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7751. January 19, 2011.] TECHNOPEAK CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION This resolves petitioner's "Verified Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision rendered on February 26, 2010)" filed on March 24, 2010, without respondent's comment/opposition thereto despite notice. In the Resolution dated June 1, 2010, this Court granted the re-opening of the case for the reception of additional evidence to establish petitioner's compliance with the requirements of the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9480. In compliance thereto, petitioner marked and presented its evidence and filed its Supplemental Formal Offer on July 22, 2010, consisting of the following: a. Exhibits "H-3" and "H-4" Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2005 and 2004; b. Exhibits "H-5" to "H-7" , inclusive of sub-markings Tax Amnesty Return; c. Exhibit "H-8" sub-markings to the Notice of Availment of Tax Amnesty 1 which enumerated the required documents to be attached to it; d. Exhibit "H-9" BIR stamp marked "Received 26 November 2007"; e. Exhibit "I-1" sub-markings to Tax Amnesty Payment Form/Acceptance of Payment Form, 2 BIR stamp marked "Received 26 November 2007", and signature above the name EVELYN PINEDA as Exhibit "I-2" ; and f. Exhibit "O" and "O-1" Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of petitioner's witness, Ms. Evelyn Pineda. aEDCAH The foregoing exhibits were admitted in a Resolution dated October 21, 2010. However, a perusal of the above documents shows that petitioner failed to present and submit proof of deposit, specifically the duly validated bank deposit slip/s in favor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), representing payment for the tax amnesty, as required by R.A. No. 9480. WHEREFORE , let the case be set solely for petitioner's marking and presentation of the duly validated bank deposit slip, to form part of petitioner's evidence, on February 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Meanwhile, the resolution of petitioner's "Verified Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision rendered on February 26, 2010)" filed on March 24, 2010 is held in abeyance . SO ORDERED . Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J., Lovell R. Bautista and Caesar A. Casanova, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Exhibit "H", admitted in the Resolution dated May 6, 2009. 2. Exhibit "I", Id.