COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THE RESIDENCES AT GREENBELT CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAXAPPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2810 REVENUE, (CTA Case N o. 9942) Petitioner, Present: - versus - Del Rosario, P.J. Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, J1. THE RESIDENCES AT GREENBELT Promulgated: CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Respondent. X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J;_ For resolution of the Court is petJ.tJ.oner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration flied on August 20, 2024 with respondent The Residences at Greenbelt Condominium Corporation's Comment (fo the Niotion for Reconsideration dated 19 A11gust 2024} filed on September 30, 2024. The CIR seeks reconsideration o f the Decision of this Court promulgated on August 5, 2024, (the "Assailed D ecision") which denied his Petition for Review for lack of merit. In seeking reconsideration of the Assailed Decision, the CIR raises the following arguments: ,.y'

RESOLUTION ITA EB NO. 2810 (ITA Case No. 9942) 1. The hnal 1\sscssment Notice (FAN) dated December 27, 2017 was issued in accordance with Revenue Memorandum Order (RJVIO) No. 26-2016 and the BIR's action was in accordance with Revenue Regulations No. 18-2013; 2. Reply /Protest against the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) 1s optional and not mandatory; 3. Under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, and R..J\10 No. 26-2016, the h\N is recognized as the assessment that must be protested by the taxpayer. Consequently, it is permissible for the BIR [not] to take into account the taxpayer's protest against the P"\N in subsequent assessment notices, such as the Final Decision on Disputed "\ssessmcnt (l"DD,\). 4. The At'Oil Prodmls case, 1 in relation to the Ang Tibtl)' case," is not applicable to the present case due to difference in factual milieu; and 5. Reiteration of an assessment docs not constitute a violation due process; instead, it only signifies the denial of the protest and/or irrelevant documents. 1\fter careful evaluation of the arguments raised VIS-a-vis the case records as well as the relevant statutory rules and jurisprudence, this Court resolves to deny the eiH.'s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. This Court stands bv its ruling in the ,\ssailcd Decision that the factual circumstances of the present case justify the application of the Avon Prod11tts case and the purported factual differences between these two (2) cases as pointed out by the em. arc more apparent than real. The Court in Division also correctly ruled that the CIR had violated respondent's right to due process thereby invalidating the subject assessment. The other points raised by the CIR were already sufficiently discussed in the .\ssailed Decision and these discussions need not be repeated here. As the em. merely recycled his arguments previously raised and passed upon by both this Court En Banr anJ the Court in Division, there is simply no compelling reason to modify much less reverse the Court in Division's Decision. In the absence of proof of gross error, abuse or improvident exercise ~ 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufactunng, G.R. Nos. 201398-99, October 03, 2018. 2 Ang Tibay v. Court ofIndustrial Relations, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2810 (CTA Case No. 9942) of authoritY, conclusions reached by this Court supported by substantial evidence shall not be disturbed on appeal.-' WHEREFORE, the Afotio11 for Recomideration filed on August 20, 2024 by the Commissioner of Internal ReYcnuc is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ 7 '-...__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice lf/E CONCUR� Presiding J usticc ~" 7-./L:...u~ci-.~--- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN .\ssociatc Jus rice ! MARIARO .\ssociatc J usticc 3 Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 192024, July 1, 2015; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Daily Inquirer~ Inc, G.R. No. 213943, March 22, 2017; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. T Shuttle Services Inc. G.R. No. 240729, August 24, 2020.11 ------��-------------------

RESOLUTION ITA EB NO. 2810 (ITA Case No. 9942) (On Leave) MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO ,\ssociate Justicc ~)V. . COR.Ap:>N G. FERRE c\ssociatc Jus rice HENRY J!GELES .\ssociatc Justicc