COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS PHILS. INC.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL , CTA E B NO. 1329 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8445) Petitioner, Present: -versus- Del Rosario, P.J., Castaneda, Jr., Bautista, Uy, C a s a n ova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Lib an, and Manahan, ]]. ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS PHILS., INC., Respondent. Promulgated: APR 27 2017~-1"< X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J.: For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" with respondent's Comment/Opposition. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as fo llows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, th~

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1329 (CTA CASE NO. 8445) decision dated February 12, 2015 and Resolution dated June 10, 2015 are hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED." Petitioner argues that the records of this case clearly show that petitioner was able to refute by contrary evidence the Court in Division's finding that there is no understatement of income made by respondent in the amount of P26,600,000.00, considering the contents of the IERD vis-a-vis the subject SLI and the testimony of respondent's witness, Mr. Ronald B. Dela Rosa; that petitioner was correct when it found respondent to have an understatement of gross income due to overstatement of cost in the amount of P26,600,000.00 and assessed respondent a deficiency income tax in the amount of P17,755,765.05 for Fiscal Year (FY) ending March 31, 2008; and that the BIR examiner's assessment should be given full weight and credit, in the absence of proof submitted by a taxpayer to the contrary. On the other hand, respondent avers the motion for reconsideration is a mere rehash of the Petition for Review; the motion for reconsideration presented nothing new and the arguments therein were already thoroughly addressed by the Court in Division and Court En Bane; the Court correctly ruled that respondent did not judicially admit that it overstated its cost and understated its income to the extent of P26,600,000.00 for FY 2008; the Court correctly ruled that respondent sufficiently proved that there was no understatement of gross income for FY 2008; and that the presumption of correctness of assessment does not apply because sufficient evidence was presented that the assessment was issued without factual basis. After consideration, the Court resolves to deny the instant motion. The Court agrees with respondent that the contentions presented by petitioner in the instant Motion for Reconsideration are a mere rehash of his previous arguments which have been duly considered and adequately discussed in the assailed Decision. In fine, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the previous rulings. In Ferdinand Marcos eta!. vs. Hon. Raul Manglapus et a/. 1 the Supreme Court , emphasized that in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movant, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court. In this case, petitioner did not satisfy this burdeny 1 Marcos vs. Manglapuz, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1329 (CTA CASE NO. 8445) WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~- ~~~ WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Presiding Justice Q.c.~a-...~~Q� LOVELL~ BAUTISTA JUANfrO C. CASTANh~A, JR. Associate Justice rP Associate Jus�tice CAESAR A. CASANOVA ERL~.UY Associate Justice Associate Justice Associate Justice t:t~�7~~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice