SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256566. July 28, 2021.]
8199 CONVENIENCE CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 July 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256566 (8199 Convenience Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc Decision 2 dated September 3, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated March 3, 2021 in CTA EB No. 1912 for failure of petitioner 8199 Convenience Corporation (petitioner) to show that the CTA En Banc committed any reversible error in upholding the deficiency income tax and value-added tax assessment against it for the taxable year 2009.
As correctly ruled by the CTA En Banc, it cannot be compelled to entertain a new argument raised for the first time on appeal. It is an established principle that '[a]n issue which was neither averred in the pleadings nor raised during trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal [as it is] offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice.' 4 According to the Rules of Court, 5 a belatedly raised argument is deemed waived considering that the same, through due diligence, could have been raised in previous pleadings. 6 Notably, it appears that the CTA En Banc still relaxed these technicalities in favor of substantial justice. Upon a thorough review of the records, the CTA En Banc still found that the assessments were validly issued through the efforts of the duly authorized revenue officers under Letter of Authority No. 2009-00022985. 7 It is settled that the CTA En Banc's findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence, or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, the Court must presume that the CTA En Banc rendered a Decision which is valid in every respect, 8 as in this case. Therefore, the deficiency tax assessments against petitioner must be upheld.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated July 14, 2021; rollo, pp. 30-46.
2.Id. at 10-22. Penned by Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, concurring.
3Id. at 24-27.
4.CIR v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., 638 Phil. 334, 346 (2010).
5. Entitled '1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED' (July 1, 1997).
6. See CIR v. United Cadiz Sugar Farmers Association Multi-Purpose Cooperative, 802 Phil. 636, 655 (2016).
7. It appears that the attached annexes referring to the said Letter of Authority is also Letter of Authority No. 2007-00022985.
8.CIR v. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., 781 Phil. 816, 825 (2016).