POWERSOURCE PHILIPPINES ENERGY INCORPORATED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 23-00 003 4-0072 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. 11078 POWERSOURCE PHILIPPINES ENERGY INCORPORATED, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL I34 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHAHANIAB. GUILING-MATANOG ATTY. MARK JOEY S. LUCERO Bureau of Internal Revenue Litigation Division, Room 703 BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City GALlAS & RIVERA LAW OFFICES 3/F, Prestige Tower, F. Ortigas Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605 GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 11, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 13, 2026. ... AttyE. xMecaurtiiaveJ~ ~Co.uCrthIaInI -Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION POWERSOURCE CTA CASE NO. 11078 PHILIPPINES ENERGY INCORPORATED, Members: Petitioner, BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MAR 1 1 ~: !Off!/ ~- ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -){ RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J. : For resolu tion of this Cou rt is responden t's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dat ed November 19, 2025), filed on December 9, 2025, with petitioner's Comment (To Motion for Reconsideration dated 9 December 2025), filed on Janu ary 19, 2026. Responden t's Motion for Reconsideration seeks the reversal of th e Cou rt's Decision promulgated on November 19, 2025, which granted petitioner's Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, petitioner's Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices dated December 9, 2021, are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. The Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated December 13, 2022, assessing petitioner for deficiency income tax, value-added tax, expanded withholding tax, documentary stamp tax, penalties,

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11078 Powersource Philippines Energy Incorpora ted v. Commissioner of Internal Reven ue ){------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){ and interest for taxable year 2018, is REVERSED a nd SET ASIDE. Furthermore, respondent is ENJOINED a nd PROHIBITED from enforcing the collection of the subject deficien cy taxes against p etitioner. SO ORDERED. Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case because the assessm ent had already become final, executory, and demandable due to the alleged late filing of petitioner's Protest against the Final Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand (FAN/FLD). Respondent questions the Cou rt's finding that the FANI FLD was void for being "prematurely issu ed," asserting that a response to a Preliminary Assessmen t Notice (PAN) is merely a manifestation of disagreement and does not constitute a formal protest that must be resolved before proceeding to the n ext stage. Finally, respondent argues that the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) is valid and that p etitioner was afforded sufficient due process. In its Comment, petitioner argues that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) properly acquired jurisdiction over its Petition for Review and that it timely filed its Protest against the FANI FLD. Petitioner further argues that the FANI FLD is void because the Bu reau of Internal Revenue (BIR) violated the mandatory fifteen (15)-day reply period for the PAN. Finally, petitioner states that the FDDA is void for affirming a void FAN I FLD and for being a mere r eiteration of the FAN I FLD. At the outset, it bears noting that the arguments raised in respondent's Motion for Reconsideration are m ere reiterations of issues already thoroughly considered, discussed, and resolved in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing mere reiterations or rehashes of grounds and argumen t s previously consider ed , weigh ed , and r esolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered does not require a n ew judicial determination.1 Thus , there is no n ecessity to discuss and rule again on this gr ound since "this would b e a useless formality of ritual invariably involving m er ely People v. Agacer, G. R. No. 177751 , January 7, 2013 [Per J. Del Casti llo, Special First Division] citing People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 2 1, 2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane]; Mendoza-Ong v. Han. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004 [Per J. Qu isumbing, Special Second Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11078 Powersource Philippines Energy Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 3 of4 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."2 In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, as follows : The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however , the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought. Thus, where the grounds raised have been sufficiently addressed in the decision, it is incumbent upon the movant to demonstrate that the Court's findings are contrary to law. In this case, respondent failed to raise any new, material, or persuasive argument to justify a reversal or modification of the Court's ruling. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its findings that the FAN/FLD are void for being prematurely issued, consistent with Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18- 20 13, and the leading cases of Prime Steel Mill, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue4 and Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Yumex Philippines Corporation, 5 which categorically hold that a FAN1FLD issued prior to the expiration of the 15-day period to reply to the PAN is void. The Court further affirms that People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 17775 1, January 7, 20 13 [Per J. Del Castillo, Special First Division] citing People v. Larraiiaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21 , 2005 [Per Curiam, En Bane] and Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. No. I09645, March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa, Third Division]. G. R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007 [Per J. Garcia, First Division], citing Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G. R. No. I09645, March 4, 1996 [Per J. Narvasa, Third Division]. G. R. No. 249 153, September 12, 2022 [Per J. Dimaampao, Thi rd Di vision]. G.R. No. 222476, May 5, 2021 (Per C.J. Gesmundo, First Division].

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 11078 Powersource Philippines Energy Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal Reven ue X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X the invalidity of the FANI FLD necessarily leads to the invalidity of the FDDA. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated November 19, 2025) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. L~~KVID / Associate Justice !CONCUR: \ JEANMA A. BACORRO-VILLENA