COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PERF RESTAURANTS, INC.

� REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3132 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 11231) Petitioner, Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ Pro m ul g ated: PERF RESTAURANTS, INC., Respondent. X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution Promulgated 06 November 2025), filed on November 27, 2025, with respondent's Comment (Re: Petitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration), filed on January 26, 2026, assailing this Court's November 6, 2025 Decision, which dismissed the instant Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction. The Motion lacks merit. Petitioner mainly argues that (1) even a preliminary fi nding of prescription is enough for the Court in Division to grant the judicial appeal before it, following Sections 203 & 222 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended ("NIRC'); and (2) given the Court in Division's findings on the relevant waivers, the fi nding of prescription is inevitable/

RESOUTIO" CTA�BNo.3132(CTACa~cl\o_ll23\) Page 2 of3 The Court En Bane is not convinced. First, nothing in the cited provisions of the NIRC speak of the preliminary findings by the Court of Tax Appeals. They would come into play if the Court in Division's findings were final, but this does not apply here, as discussed in the assailed Decision. The Court in Division clearly marked its findings as preliminary. Second, assuming arguendo that the relevant waivers are, in fact, invalid, the fact remains that the Court in Division has yet to act on such invalidity in relation to the main case. It has yet to act on the Petition for Review before it or on the assessment being assailed there. As such, to treat the Court in Division's resolutions as final actions on the assessment is procedurally premature. Petitioner, as such, cannot simply assume that the Court in Division will grant the Petition before it and thus treat its findings as final, without awaiting the actual actions of the Court in Division. By treating its findings as final, and by filing the instant Petition for Review before the Court En Bane, petitioner effectively preempted the Court in Division's ruling on the main case. This is procedurally unsound and cannot be allowed. The Motion thus raises no substantial challenge to this Court En Bane's ruling. FOR THESE REASONS, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution Promulgated 06 November 2025), filed on November 27, 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision, dated November 6, 2025, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. l /) WE CONCUR: MARIA Rdi~~N�'~j ES'�TO-SAN PEDRO . A&soci!te Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ' � JEAN MA'S~t~~~RRO-VILLENA ~ciate Justice

RF:SOLlTIO:\ CTA EB No.3 132 (CTA Case No. 11231) Page 3 of3 ~ ~ r. lt�>-1 -~~�~~ MARIAN IVU. REYts-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~~ID Associate Justice CO~AssoGciat~ e Jus~ tic~I~'-''"S"'/ 1/JL HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice