COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. IZONE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO . m15 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8696) Pe titio n e r , Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, �L, UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN , BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES- FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, and FERRER-FLORES, Jl. IZONE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES, Res p o nd e n t . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L: For the Court's resolution is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (petitioner's/ CIR's) "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane os Decision dated May 2022)n1 (MR) fil e d on 23 June 2 without 2022 , respondent Izone Technologies Philippines' (respondent's/ ITP's) c o m m e n t. 3 / Rollo, pp. 178-184 . Received by the Court on 08 July 2022. Per Resolution dated 12 October 2022, the Court En Bane treated respondent's "Comments/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 5 May 2022)", filed on 06 September 2022, as a mere scrap of paper for being belatedly filed and, considering that the period allowed for ft Iing a comment/opposition had already lapsed, it deemed respondent to have waived its right to the fi ling thereof; Rollo, pp. 197-199.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO.ll2.5_ (CTA Case No. 8696) C!R v. !zone Technologies Philippines X------------------------------- X Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court En Bane's Decision in the above-captioned case dated os May 20224 (assailed Decision), the cancellation of the Special First Division's Amended Decision dated 18 October 20195 (Amended Decision), and the reinstatement of the Decision dated 29 April 20196 (Original Decision). The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Amended Decision and Assailed Resolution dated 18 October 2019 and 13 May 2020, respectively, in CTA Case No. 86g6, entitled [zone Technologies Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are hereby AFFIRMED. Consequently, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any person duly acting on his or her behalf is hereby ENJOINED from collecting or taking further action on the deficiency taxes assessed against respondent !zone Technologies Philippines as provided in the Final Assessment Notices and the Formal Letter of Demand in the aggregate amount ofP1,oo5,217.37 for the taxable year 2008. SO ORDERED. In the instant MR7, petitioner maintains and reiterates his or her position that respondent's right to due process was not violated in the conduct of the audit examination of its books of accounts and other accounting records for the taxable year (TY) 2oo8 since it was duly notified of the assessments and was given ample time and opportunity to protest the findings against it. Petitioner also reiterates his or her argument that respondent should be liable to pay the deficiency Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) assessment in the amount of P195,199-14./ Rollo, pp. 141-171. Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 1289-130 I. 6 !d., pp. 1187-1214. Supra at note I.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO.ll.2.5. (CTA Case No. 8696) CIR v. !zone Technologies Philippines x------------------ ------------ -x We resolve. As the records bear out clearly, petitioner raised no new issues or arguments that the Court, either in Division or sitting, En Bane, did not consider or resolve. In fact, the instant MR8 is a word-for-word reiteration of petitioner's previous MR9 to the Special First Division's Amended Decision10 and a repetition of the arguments in its Petition for Review.11 Petitioner's arguments have already been considered, squarely addressed, and found to be without merit by the Special First Division in its Resolution dated 13 May 2 and then by the Court En Bane in 2020' the assailed Decision.'3 A simple reading of the instant MR'4 readily reveals it contains a mere rehash of petitioner's arguments in its Petition for Review'5 before the Court En Bane. In this light, the Court En Bane finds no need to likewise repeat its prior pronouncements. In Licomcen Incorporated v. Foundation Specialists, Inc.'6, the Supreme Court, citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. judge Tirso Velasco, et al.'7, held that: 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; Supra at note I. 9 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 1302-1307. 10 Supra at note 5. II Filed via email on 03 August 2020, Rollo, pp. 5-44, with annexes. 12 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 1325-1329. 13 Supra at note 4. 14 Supra at note I. 15 Supra at note II. 16 G.R. Nos. 167022 and 169678, 31 August 2007. 17 G.R. Nos. 109645 and 112564,04 March 1996.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2.2..2.5. (CTA Case No. 8696) CIR v. !zone Technologies Philippines Page 4of5 X------------------------------ -X the first time, these being, x x x 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. As petitioner merely recycled its previous submissions and arguments, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 05 May 2022)" filed on 23 June 2022 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. � .AC~ILLENA WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ON LEAVE ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO.ll.2.5. (CTA Case No. 8696) CIR v. !zone Technologies Philippines Page 5 of5 X------------------------------ -X ~~ -t.L_ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~I&':/~I--V--~.... -/-�- THERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ~ fb.. r.-~.r~ MARIAN Iffl. REY~=FA~RDO Associate Justice humdtnt- LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice c~IGAss'oci.~t~~-jL~~O~ZeRES