COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CEBU AIR, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2013 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9106) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CEBU AIR, INC., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. Prom~ e~: ________ -- - 7/Q ~Ji.>o/-""- � Responde~t~ NO 0 2020 X----- - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .�: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated June 30, 2020]"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on July 21, 2020 via registered mail, with Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated 21 July 2020)"2 ("Comment/ O pposition") filed on October 02, 2020, seeking to reconsider and set aside the Decision3 promulgated on June 30, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and another one be rendered ordering Respondent to pay the entire amount of deficiency tax assessment, plus increments, until full payment, pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: / j/ Rollo, pp . 176-188. 2 !d., pp. 180-215. 3 !d., pp. 149-168.

RESOLUTION CfA EB No. 2013 (CfA Case No. 9106) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on March 01, 2019 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the September 27, 2018 Amended Decision and January 23, 2019 Resolution in CTA Case No. 9106 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that Respondent's documentary evidence attached to its motion should not have been admitted in evidence and considered in deciding the case. Petitioner also contends that this Court erred in ruling matters that were never substantiated in the administrative level, as well as in cancelling the compromise penalty. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment/Opposition, states that the grounds raised by Petitioner in his motion were already considered by this Court in the Assailed Decision. We find for Respondent. Petitioner's contentions are mere recapitulation of the arguments he has raised in his "Petition for Review" filed with this Court, which as We have previously pointed out as also a reproduction of the "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Amended Decision dated 27 September 2018" flied by Petitioner on October 16, 2018 before the Second Division. Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated June 30, 2020]" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~- ~ /'---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 4 Id., p. 167.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2013 (CTA Case No. 9106) WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Q.~a....u~C ~ s-1.../ 9-. . Wt~~6AY~ Jfi'ANITO C. CASTANEDK,JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice l ~'-~ JEAN ~ CATHERINE MANAHAN "f)l\.L.VJ:U~V-VILLENA Associate Justice MARIAKUM< PEDRO