MA. ERLINDA T. ONG, Doing Business Under the Name and Style Maranatha Sales Distributor, Duly Represented herein by her Attorney-in-fact, Ms. Ria Sablon, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR) OF the BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR)

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 1111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 20-000097-0057 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10265 MA. ERLINDA T. ONG, Doing Business Under the Name and Style 'Maranatha Sales Distributor, Duly Represented herein by her Attorney-in-fact, Ms. Ria Sablon, Petitioner, - versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR) OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), Respondent. To: OFFI CE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Lcgazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SYLVIA R. ALMA J OSE ATTY. BRYAN ANTHONY C. DIEGO Bureau ofTntcrnal Revenue Room 704, Prosecution Division, RlR National Office Building Sen. Miriam. P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. ERI C C. CORTES Unit 103, AlC Burgundy Empire Tower Sapphire Road, Ortigas Center Brgy. San Antonio, Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on August 9, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, A ugust 12, 2024. Executi

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION MA. ERLINDA T. ONG, Doing CTA CASE NO. 10265 Business Under the Name and Style 'Maranatha Sales Members: Distributor, Duly Represented herein by her Attorney-in- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, fact, Ms. Ria Sablon, BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. Petitioner, -versus- THE COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR) OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 03 May 2024) praying that the Court reverse and set aside its Decision dated May 3, 2024 (assailed Decision), with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand dated March 2, 2015, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated March 2, 2020, and the Warrants of Garnishment dated March 9, 2020, assessing petitioner of deficiency income tax, percentage tax, and compromise penalty for taxable year 2011 , inclusive of interests and surcharges, are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Further, respondent is ENJOINED from proceeding with the collection of taxes in this case. SO ORDERED.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10265 Ma. Erlinda T. Ong v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Respondent argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over this case since petitioner's right to appeal to this Court was lost when it failed to appeal within 30 days from petitioner's receipt of the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL), pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99. Respondent insists that petitioner's right to due process was not violated because the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) was sent to petitioner through registered mail. Also, respondent claims that petitioner was duly informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessments were made and was given a real opportunity to be heard, as shown by petitioner's filing of her protest to the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) and PCL. Respondent further argues that the right to collect petitioner's percentage tax liability has not prescribed because Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides an exception to the three-year period to collect in case of failure to file a return. Given that petitioner did not present proof that she filed a percentage tax return for 2011, the extraordinary period to assess and collect applies. Respondent also claims that presumptions favor the correctness of the assessment; thus, petitioner must satisfactorily overcome said presumption of regularity. Lastly, respondent asserts that the collection of taxes cannot be enjoined because the elements necessary for the issuance of the injunction are not satisfied; particularly, there is no urgent and paramount necessity for a suspension order to be issued to prevent any grave and irreparable damage upon petitioner. The motion lacks merit. Apart from the issue that the Court cannot enJom respondent from collecting petitioner's deficiency taxes, respondent's arguments were already considered and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision. As discussed therein, respondent failed to prove that petitioner received the PAN. It is settled that the sending and actual receipt of the PAN is part and parcel of the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment that the Bureau of

� RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10265 Ma. Erlinda T. Ong v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Internal Revenue must strictly comply with. 1 Considering that respondent did not comply with the requirements of due process, the assessments against petitioner are null and void.2 As such, the application of the extraordinary prescriptive period3 and the collection of taxes are improper. WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 03 May 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. jMAAAttrJt( LANJ~ ~~ ~UI-DAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ROMAN G. DEL R SARlO Presiding Justice JEAN MARI'~~VILLENA ~i~te Justice 1 Mannasoft Technology Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 244202. July 10, 2023. citing Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama. Inc.. G.R. No. 185371. December 8, 20 !0. 2 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Aia.�ricare Heaithcare Corp., G.R. No. 261065. July 10,2023. 3 See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villanueva. Jr.. G.R. No. 249540. February 28. 2024.