COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. Q-CLEAN LIVING PHILS., CORP.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1435 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8586) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, ]]. Q-CLEAN LIVING PHILS. CORP., p romulgated: Respondent. NOll 2 9 2017 /~ � X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .L: T his resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on July 20, 20171 seeking to set aside the Decision2 promulgated on June 23, 2017 (Assailed Decision). On August 15, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution3 ordering Respondent to comment on the MR within ten (1 0) days from notice. Respondent filed its "Comment (To P etitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 18 July 2017)" via registered mail on August 04, 2017. T he dispositive portion of the Assailed D ecision reads as follows: ~ 1 Rollo, pp. 234-240. 2 Id. at pp. 216-227. 3 Id. at p. 246-247 .

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1435 (CTA case No. 8586) WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions reached by the Second Division in the assailed Decision dated October 30, 2015 as well as in the assailed Resolution dated February 12,2016, the same are []AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the Petition for Review flled with the Court En Bane on March 14, 2016 is [DENIED] for lack of merit.4 After a careful consideration and evaluation of the parties' respective arguments, the Court finds that the arguments raised in Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" are mere rehash of Petitioner's arguments in his "Petition for Review" and "Memorandum", and have already been amply discussed, passed upon and considered by this Court in the Assailed Decision sought to be reconsidered. As to the documents attached by Petitioner in its "Motion for Reconsideration", suffice it to say that a cursory perusal thereof reveals that their contents will not establish the date when Respondent received the Final Assessment Notice ("FAN"). As we have held in the Assailed Decision, when Respondent alleged in the Petition that it received the FAN on March 14, 2011, the burden shifted to Petitioner to show that the same was received on a different date. Consequently, said documents cannot support Petitioner's argument that Respondent's administrative protest was ft.led out of time. From all the foregoing, Petitioner's arguments constitute neither compelling nor cogent reason to modify, much less reverse the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. _;t ..._� MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 4 Id. at p. 64.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1435 (CTA Case No. 8586) fk~'loc~~/~ LOVEJR. BAUTISTA j(JANITO C. CASTANED~,JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice .. E~AP.UY Associate Justice G:JJ; N. M~~-C~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice t'~-7-/Jt~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice