COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOLDXTREME TRADING CO.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2751 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10129) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RING PIS-LIB AN, MANAHAN, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ GOLDXTREME TRADING CO., Respondent. Promulgated: AUG 09 202~ X -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Notice of Decision promulgated on April 17, 2024), filed on May 7, 2024, with respondent' s Comment {To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated May 6, 2024), filed via registered mail on June 3, 2024. Petitioner seeks the setting aside ofthis Court En Bane's Decision, dated April 17, 2024, which dismissed the instant Petition for Review for being belatedly filed and observed that the arguments raised therein merely rehashed arguments already refuted by the Couti in Division. The Motion is bereft of merit. While petitioner quotes a variety of Supreme Court decisions and insists that these should be applied to this case, he does not offer any reason j

RESOLlTION CTA�BNo_2751lCTACaseNo.10129) Page 2 of3 for such. He simply states that the lapses which led to the late filing of his Petition "were not made intentionally !or] intended to cause delay" without supporting said claims or explaining such lapses. With no good reason for a liberal application of procedural rules to this case, We stand by Our dismissal of the Petition. As for petitioner's contentions regarding his failure to properly serve the second Letter of Authority to respondent and the invalidity ofthe relevant Assessment Notices, the same merely reiterate the arguments he raised before the Court in Division. However, the latter's Resolution, dated April 12, 2023, already thoroughly debunks said arguments. These have remained unchanged and fail to acknowledge, much less correct, the infirmities in petitioner's position as identified by the Court a quo. We thus need not go over these arguments here. For similar reasons, even if the Petition was not dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction, it would still be denied for lack of merit. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Notice of Decision promulgated on April 17, 2024), filed on May 7, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision, dated April 17, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: a"'"''"'""'~ ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice av. ~ -r'--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice '/-' ~--~...~..�./. ~~~�~�~�~~~--------- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOUTIO" CTA EB No_ 2751 (Cr1\ Case No. 101291 Page3or3 ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice ltturftinX LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice c~~:~{iiRii%H:fEs Associate Justice HENRY /_I}NGELES Associate Justice