COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNICK TREND INNOVATION CORP.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EB NO. 2858 Petitioner, (CTA OC No. 027) Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting P.J., MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJ ARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. UNICK TREND INNOVATION Promulgated: CORP. , Respondent. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: This resolves the following: 1. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 20 May 2025}, 1 filed on June 9, 2025; and 2 . Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File and Admit Comment/ Opposition, filed via accredited courier on September 12, 2025, and received by the Cou rt En Bane on September 15, 2025. y The Cou rt first addresses respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File and Admit Comment/ Opposition. En Bane (�8 ) Docket. pp. 103-107.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2858 (CTA OC No. 027) Republic of the Philippines v. Unick Trend Innovation Corp. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X To recall, on August 27, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution which, among others, deemed respondent's Comment/ Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration filed via electronic mail (e-mail) on July 7, 2025, as not filed, for its failure to submit ten (10) paper copies within five (5) days. Respondent avers that it received the Minute Resolution only on September 12, 2025. Hence, the instant Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File and Admit Comment/ Opposition, requesting the Court En Bane to reconsider its Resolution in the interest of justice and in view of the absence of substantial prejudice to the opposing party. In compliance with the Court's rules, respondent attached ten (10) copies of its Comment/ Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration to the instant motion. Finding merit in respondent's explanation, and to give it a final opportunity to argue its case, the Court GRANTS respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File and Admit Comment/ Opposition. Accordingly, the attached Comment/ Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration ts ADMITTED and shall form part of the record of this case. The Court now resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [re: Decision dated 20 May 2025].2 Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court En Bane's Decision3 promulgated on May 20, 2025 (assailed Decision), the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed by the Republic of the Philippines is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated June 21, 2023, and Resolution dated December 14, 2023, issued by the Special Third Division in CTA OC No. 027, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. The assailed Decision sustained the ruling of the Court in Division declaring the assessment against respondent null and void for lack of a valid Letter of Authority (LOA). ~ ld EB Dod.d. pp. 8-J.-1 02.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2858 (CTA OC No. 027) Republic of the Philippines v. Unick Trend Innovation Corp. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In seeking reconsideration of the assailed Decision, petitioner claims that the Court En Bane erred in cancelling the assessment. It argues that the Court En Bane erroneously relied on Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue+ (Medicard), asserting that Medicard is inapplicable to the present case because the assessment therein was disputed, whereas the assessment in this case is already final, executory, and demandable. Hence, petitioner maintains that the issuance of the LOA is not an issue that the Court should pass upon in this case. Further, petitioner reiterates that an LOA is necessary only when there is a need to audit the taxpayer's books of accounts and other accounting records. In such cases, the LOA serves to protect the taxpayer from unscrupulous schemes involving unauthorized persons who may examine the said records. However, petitioner claims that when discrepancies are discovered without auditing the taxpayer's books and records, the issuance of an LOA is not required. Finally, petitioner maintains that the assessment 1s already final, executory, and demandable, and cannot be questioned on appeal. In its Comment/ Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, respondent submits that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration merely restates arguments previously raised and resolved by the Court. Hence, it prays for the denial of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for being pro forma, lacking merit, and relying on inapplicable jurisprudence. After careful consideration, the Court finds petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration without merit. After reviewing the allegations in the subject Motion for Reconsideration and the arguments presented by petitioner, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to deviate from its ruling in the assailed Decision. The Motion for Reconsideration raises no new or substantial grounds that would warrant a departure from the previous conclusion and finding of the Court En Bane. All issues and arguments raised have already been passed upon, amply discussed, and exhaustively considered, first by the Court in Division and, on appeal, by the Court En Bane. ~ G.R. No. 2227-l-3. April 5. 2017 [.I. Rc~cs. Third [)j, isionj.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2858 (CTA OC No. 027) Republic of the Philippines v. Unick Trend Innovation Corp. X----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------X On this point, the Supreme Court's pronouncement m Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim,s is instructive: The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc. (Emphasis supplied) Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to disturb its ruling. Accordingly, the assailed Decision stands. ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (re: Decision dated 20 May 2025) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. LAN~~AVID WE CONCUR: Associate Justice ~- -LL... --1 '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916. March I0. 20 15 [Per J. Pen..?. 1~�~~ Bane].

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2858 (CTA OC No. 027) Republic of the Philippines v. Unick Trend Innovation Corp. X-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------X c~�,-~ CATHERINlT. MANAHAN Associate Justice ( ~ ~ f. ~rffiV1~ MARIAN Ivit F. REVES-F'AJARDO Associate Justice ON LEAVE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice HENRY L/!INGELES Associate Justice