CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CARMEN COPPER CTA EB NO. 2018 CORPORATION, (CTA Case Nos. 9124 & 9200) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- U Y, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. REVENUE , Promul~ated: ~~Sp~~~~~t~ ~~-~-~ ~- !~- --- X- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - X / )'3o a� n-.... . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, L: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration"1 flied on June 30, 2020 via registered mail and received by this Court on July 15, 2020, without Respondent's comment thereon.2 The "Motion for Reconsideration" seeks to set aside the Decision3 promulgated on March 09, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and reopen the case and allow Petitioner to present additional documentary and testimonial evidence, including a supplemental/consolidated Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) Report. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: d Rollo, pp. 147-159. 2 Records Verification Report dated December 07, 2020 stat ing that Respondent failed to fi le his comment on Petitioner's " Motion for Reconsideration". 3 Rollo, pp. 127-140.

RESOLUTION CfA EB No. 2018 (CfA Case Nos. 9124 & 9200) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated October 01, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2019 of the Special Second Division in the consolidated cases docketed as CTA Case Nos. 9124 and 9200 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In its "Motion for Reconsideration", Petitioner submits that it has sufficiendy established all the requisites for the refund of its excess and unutilized input value-added tax ("VAT") and it was able to prove the existence of its zero- rated sales with sufficient evidence. Petitioner claims that the Court En Bane erred in declaring that it is not entided to the refund sought and that the Court should allow the reopening of the case so that Petitioner may submit supplemental evidence. The instant motion must be denied. Evidendy, Petitioner failed to present any new argument to dispute the finding and conclusion reached by the Court En Bane. It has not raised any new or compelling reason to warrant a finding different from what has already been rendered by the Court. There is nothing in its "Motion for Reconsideration" that has not been squarely addressed and meticulously passed upon by the Court En Bane. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ON.~~<......___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 4 !d., p. 139.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2018 (CTA Case Nos. 9124 & 9200) � Q.~c.G..T-~,9-. ERL~P.UY Associate Justice JUANITO c. CASTANED.K, JR. Associate Justice ck/rn)�R~.~~E� 7 _4.�~�""'""'-- ' T. MANAHAN JEANM~ -"'\.AI IU\.V-VILLENA Associate Justice MARIARO