cta_decision CTA Case No. EB 3021EB 3021 2025-11-27

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BIO-RESOURCE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 3021 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10372) Petitioner, Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting P.J., MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. BIO-RESOURCE POWER GENERATION Promulgated: CORPORATION, -=r;�r Respondent. NOV 27 2025 #:), .. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~"?9-~'!r- � DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before the Court En Bane is a Petition for Review,1 seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated July 30, 2024 (assailed Decision)2 and the Resolution dated October 4 , 2024 (assailed Resolution)3 of the Court's Second Division (Court in Division), which cancelled and set aside the deficiency income tax (IT), value-added tax (VAT), expanded withholding tax (EWT) , and compromise penalties in the aggregate amount ofP33,468,709.51 , for the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2016. ~ 1 En Bane (�8 ) Docket. pp. 9- 29. /d. at 18-34. !d. at 36--39.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PARTIES Petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), is the chief of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), vested under the appropriate laws with the authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of his office, including, among others, the power to decide disputed assessments and to cancel and abate tax liabilities, pursuant to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and other laws, rules and regulations.4 Respondent, Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with a registered address at URC-Sonedco Sugar Mill Compound, Camugao, Negros Occidental, Philippines. It is a registered taxpayer of the BIR Large Taxpayers Service, with Taxpayer Identification No. 000- 285-515-00000.5 THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS The facts, as found by the Court in Division, are as follows: A Letter of Authority ("LOA") with SN: eLA201600026888, dated May 18, 2018, was issued for the examination and investigation of [respondent]'s books of accounts and other accounting records, and received by [respondent] on June 5, 2018. A Notice of Informal Conference ("NIC"), dated December 18, 2018, was issued to and received by [respondent]. The informal conference was held on January 11, 2019. A Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN"), dated March 4, 2019, with Details of Discrepancies was issued to and received by [respondent] on March 5, 2019, assessing [respondent] with deficiency income tax, value-added tax, and expanded withholding tax, and compromise penalties, aggregating !'30,442,299.39, inclusive of interest and surcharges, computed as follows: ld at -1-2. D.:cision dated Jul) 30. 202-l-. /d at -1-1--f2.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X TaxT e Basic Interest Surchar e Com romise Total Income Tax 1'12,562, 123.28 1'4, 160,854.39 1'3, 140,530.82 1'19,863,508.49 VAT I' - EWT 5,036,070.27 1,891,883.73 1,259,017.57 8,186,971.57 Administrative 1,163,904.12 446,939.18 290,976.03 - 1,901,819.33 penalties TOTAL - - - - 490,000.00 490,000.00 1'18,762,097.67 1'6,499,677.30 1'4,690,524.42 1'490,000.00 1'30,442,299.39 [Respondent] filed its Reply to the PAN on March 20, 2019. A Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice ("FLO/FAN") with Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notices, dated April 4, 2019, was issued to and received by [respondent] on April 29, 2019, reiterating the assessments in the PAN, except for the adjusted interest. The total amount thus assessed aggregated to 1"30,830,049.40, inclusive of interest and surcharges. [Respondent] filed a Protest against the FLO/FAN, through a request for reconsideration, on May 29, 2019. An undated Final Decision on Disputed Assessment ("FDDA") with Assessment Notices was issued to and received by [respondent] on September 9, 2020, denying [respondent]'s Protest and upholding and reiterating the assessments in the FLD/FAN, except for the adjusted interest. The total amount thus assessed aggregated to 1"33,468,709.51, inclusive of interest and surcharges. [Respondent] thus filed a Petition for Review ("Petition") before this Court on October 8, 2020, praymg for the cancellation of [petitioner]'s assessment for deficiency income tax, VAT, and EWT for FY ending September 30, 2016 in the aggregate amount of 1"33,468709.51, inclusive of compromise penalties, surcharge, and interest. On the other hand, [petitioner]'s Answer, belatedly filed on January 4, 2021, was admitted. The case was set and held for mediation before the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals ("PMC- CTA") on March 18, 2021, but the parties did not agree to mediate. After a series of resettings, the Pre-Trial Conference was set and held on April 28, 2022. Prior thereto, [respondent]'s and [petitioner]'s respective Pre-Trial Briefs were filed on October 25, 2021 and April21, 2022, respectively. Meanwhile, [petitioner] transmitted the BIR Records on March 10, 2022. ~

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X On May 26, 2022, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts, which was approved, admitted and adopted in the Pre-Trial Order issued and dated July 12, 2022. Upon motion of [respondent], an Amended Pre-Trial Order was issued on October 24, 2022. Trial then ensued, with the parties presenting and offering their respective documentary and testimonial evidence. [Respondent] offered the testimony of Mr. Danilo M. Timbang and thereafter filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits on August 18, 2022, with [petitioner]'s Comment/Opposition (on [Respondent]'s Formal Offer of Evidence) filed on September 2, 2022. In the Resolution dated September 20, 2022, the Court admitted all of [respondent]'s offered exhibits, except for Exhibits "P-15-1" and "P-15-3", for failure to present the originals for comparison. For his part, [petitioner] offered the testimonies of Revenue Officers Ana Veronica A. Asis and Mary Ann R. Balubal. [Petitioner] then submitted his Formal Offer of Evidence on March 29, 2023, with [respondent]'s Comment (Re: [Petitioner]'s Formal Offer of Evidence dated March 29, 2023) filed on April 11, 2023. In the Resolution dated June 13, 2023, the Court admitted all of [petitioner]'s offered exhibits. [Respondent] filed its Memorandum on July 17, 2023, while [petitioner]'s Memorandum was submitted on July 20, 2023. Thus, in the Resolution dated August 4, 2023, the case was deemed submitted for decision. On July 30, 2024, the Court in Division promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assessment for deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT, and compromise penalties in the aggregate amount of 1'33,468,709.51 for the FY ending September 30, 2016 is hereby declared NULL and VOID and is thus CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Further, [petitioner] is ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from collecting the said amount against [respondent]. SO ORDERED. On August 16, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 July 2024),6 to which respondent filed a Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Di\ ision Docket- Vol. 2. pp. 953-963.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Reconsideration dated August 16, 2024]7 by registered mail on September 11, 2024. On October 4, 2024, the Court in Division rendered the assailed Resolution, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the fallo of which reads: ACCORDINGLY, [petitioner]'s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 July 2024), filed on August 16, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated July 30, 2024, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. On November 4, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review,8 which the Court granted on November 6, 2024, subject to the condition that the motion was timely filed. As a result, the deadline for filing the petition for review was extended by fifteen (15) days, or until November 20, 2024.9 On November 19, 2024, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review. Pursuant to the Court En Bane's directive, 1o respondent filed a Comment (Re: Petition for Review dated November 19, 2024)11 on January 2, 2025. On January 17, 2025, the Court En Bane referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center-Court of Tax Appeals (PMC- CTA) for mediation.l2 On February 28, 2025, the Court En Bane received PMC- CTA Form No. 6-No Agreement to Mediate, dated February 26, 2025, stating that the parties decided not to submit the case for mediation.13 On March 13, 2025, the Court En Bane noted the PMC- CTA report and submitted this case for decision. 14 /d. at 99.\-1 006. tB Docket. pp. 1--l. /d. at 8. Notice of Resolution. 10 ld at 56. Notice of Resolution. II fd at 57-70. 1 ~ Jd at 73. Notice of Resolution. 1-' ld at 7-l-. 1 /d. at 75. :-Jot ice of Resolution. _.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X THE ISSUES Petitioner assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the Court in Division: Is I. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN DECLARING IN ITS DECISION NULL AND VOID THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PETITIONER. II. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT STATED IN ITS DECISION THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. III. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENJOINED THE RESPONDENT FROM COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSED TAX IN THE AMOUNT OF !'33,468,709.51. Petitioner's arguments Petitioner contends that both the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) contained a demand for payment and a definite amount of tax liability. He argues that the phrase "requested to pay" is equivalent to a demand, and the interest adjustment clause does not render the assessment indefinite. Petitioner also argues that the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), FLD, and FDDA provided factual and legal bases for the assessment. Respondent was given opportunities to present evidence, which were reviewed but found insufficient. Further, petitioner posits that the assessments were issued within the ten (10)-year prescriptive period under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, due to substantial underdeclaration of taxable sales, receipts or income and substantial overstatement of deductions, which constitute prima facie evidence of a false or fraudulent return. 16 Petitioner asserts that the assessments were based on third- party information (TPI) showing discrepancies in respondent's salesI income and costsI expenses as reported in its tax returns. or 1' ld at 12. Petition for Rc\'k\\'. Assignment Errors. 16 /d. at 23. Petition for RcYic\\. par. 3.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X (b) A party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen davs from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. (Emphasis supplied) Jurisprudence has consistently held that, in cases involving the government, the counting of the reglementary period to appeal, and the determination of when a decision becomes final, is based on the date the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), 17 as the government's principal counsel, receives the decision or resolution. Receipt by a lawyer merely deputized by the OSG does not bind the government for purposes of reckoning the appeal period, since the OSG retains full supervision and control over such deputized counsel. IS As such, parties must always refer to the OSG's date of receipt for computing deadlines. This principle was articulated in Baldovino-Torres v. Torres, 19 where the Supreme Court affirmed its earlier rulings on the matter: In the case of National Power Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (NAPOCOR), the Court held that the proper basis for computing the reglementary period to file an appeal and in determining whether a decision had attained finality is service on the OSG. In holding so, the Court emphasized that the lawyer deputized by the OSG is considered as a mere representative of the latter who retains supervision and control over the deputized lawyer. As a consequence, copies of orders and decisions served on the deputized counsel, acting as agent or representative of the Solicitor General, are not binding until they are actually received by the latter. The NAPOCOR case was cited in the subsequent case of v Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, where it was reiterated that although the OSG may have deputized the 17 Repuhlic r Uqje. eta/.. G.R. No. 180993. January 17.2016 [Per J. R..;y..;s. Third Division]. citing Xationa/ Pmrer Corporation r . .\"ariona!l.abor Relations Commission cr a!.. CJ.R. Nos. 90933-61. May 29. 1997 Wer J. Romero. Second DiYision]. IS Ba!do\�ino-Torres r. Torres. era!.. Ci.R. 1\o. 2-1-8675. Jul~ 20. 2012 IP~r J. lnting. Third Di\'isionl: Commissioner o( Customs\'. Court (~(Tax .�lppeal'>. et al_. G.R. \Jo. 132929. March 27. 2000 [Per J. Mendoza. Second DiYision]: .\'ationa! Pmra Corporation r . .\ariona! Labor Relations Commission. era!.. G.R. T'\os. 90933----61. May 29. 1997 [Per J. Romero. Second Di\�ision]. 19 G.R. No. 2-1-8675. July 20.2022 [Per J. Jnting. Third Di\�i:;ion].

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X lawyers in a government agency represented by it, the OSG continues to be the principal counsel and, therefore, service on it of legal processes, and not that on the deputized lawyers, is decisive. In the same vein, the period to file a motion for reconsideration in the present case should be counted from the receipt by the OSG of a copy of the RTC Decision on April 4, 2017. Consequently, the filing by the OSG of its Motion for Reconsideration questioning the RTC Decision on April 18, 2017 was well within the reglementary period for filing such motion. The counting of the period for its filing should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the assailed decision by the OSG and not by the public prosecutor. This is because the public prosecutor acted as a mere representative of the OSG which, in turn, retained supervision and control over the former. (Emphasis supplied; Citations omitted) A government lawyer deputized by the OSG is merely a representative, while the OSG retains supervision and control over the deputized counse1.20 Thus, copies of court decisions served on a deputized counsel are not binding until they are received by the OSG, as the principal counsel. In this case, petitioner erroneously relied on the date of receipt by the BIR's deputized counsel of the assailed Resolution on October 21, 2024. 21 However, records show that the OSG received the same Resolution earlier, on October 15, 2024.22 Thus, the 15-day reglementary period to file a petition for review or move for an extension, reckoned from October 15, 2024 under Section 3(b), Rule 823 of the RRCTA, expired on October 30, 2024. However, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review only on November 4, 2024, and the instant Petition for Review on November 19, 2024, both beyond the allowable period. Consequently, the assailed Resolution of the Court in Division became ipso facto final and executory by operation of law due to petitioner's failure v to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period.24 '0 Baldm�ino- Torres r. Torres. eta!.. G.R. 1\o. 2-1-86 75. Jul) 20. 2022 IP~r J. lnting. Third Di\ ision 1: Commissioner of Customs,._ Cowt of Tax .�/ppea!s. eta/.. G.R. No. 132929. \1arch 27. 2000 [Per J. Mendoza. Second Division]: .\ationa/ Pmrer Cmporarion \'. Yational Labor Rrdations Commission. uta!.. Ci.R. :"los. 90933-61. May 29. 1997 [Per J. Romero. Second DiYisionJ. EB Docket. p. I0. Petition for Re\ ie''. DiYision Docket- Vol. 2. p. 1012. SEC. 3. Who nw_r appeal: period to(ile petition- .... (h) A part) ad,�ersel) affected hy a decision or resolution of a DiYision of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or ne\\' trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for re\�ie\\ \\ ithin filken days from n:ceipt ora ~.:op) of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the pa) nknt of the full amount of the docket and other la\\�ful fees and deposit for costs before the e\piration of the reglcmentary period herein !1\ed. the Court may grant an additional period not e\ceeding fifteen days from the e:-,:piration of the original period within \\hieh to lile the petition for n.?Yiew. Brua/ r. Contreras. eta/.. G.R. No. 20545 L March 7. :W22!Per J. Hernando. Second DiYision].

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Po\ver Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X It is well-settled that failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality butjurisdictional.2s Once the period lapses, the Court loses jurisdiction to review the assailed Resolution, thereby precluding petitioner from challenging it. The Court in Division did not err in cancelling the assessment for violating respondent's right to due process. Even assummg the present appeal was timely filed, the assessment remains void for failure to comply with the due process requirements mandated by law and jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has constantly nullified tax assessments that infringe on a taxpayer's right to due process,26 as the law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement.27 Due process in tax proceedings requires the CIR to state with particularity the reasons for rejecting the taxpayer's explanations, citing specific facts and evidence on record. 28 Failure to comply with this requirement renders the assessment null and void.29 A perusal of the records shows that petitioner disregarded respondent's explanations in its Reply to the PAN30 filed on March 20, 2019. A comparison of the PAN31 and the FLD32 reveals that the FLD merely replicated the PAN, with the only difference being the updated interest amount. Likewise, the Details of Discrepancies attached to both notices are also identical. The FLD's Details of Discrepancies did not V" acknowledge or address respondent's arguments in its Reply to the PAN. : 6 Commissioner oF Internal Ri!W!/1/u! r. { �nioil Cmporarion. (J.R. T\o. 20-1-+05. August ..J.. 2021 [Per J. Hernando. Second DiYision ]: lommissioner of Internal Rel'C/11/e \". .\Ierro .)'tar .\upemma. Inc.. G.R. No. 185371. December 8. 20 I0 [Per .1. \1cndoza. Second Di\ ision]: Commissioner o{ 111/erna! Ren:nue \'. Enron .)"uhic PfJ1\'er C01poration. (i.R. No. 166387. January 19.:2009 [Per J. Corona. hrst Di\ isionl ~ 7 Commissioner q(lnternal Rerenue r. Cnioil Co1porutiun. G.R. :.Jo. 20-J...J-05. August ..J.. 2021 [Per J. Hernando. Second Di' ision]. ~8 Commissioner of Internal Revenuer..-Iron Products _\fmwf(tcfllring. Inc .. G.R. 1\os. 201398~99 & 201418~19. October 3. 2018 [Per J. Leonen. Third DiYision[. ~9 ld Di' ision Docket~ Vol. 2. pp. 648~680. E-..:hibit ��P-6'". 31 /d. at 6--1-3--647. Exhibit ��P-5'": BIR Records. pp. 18..J.~189. E--..:hibit ��R-5"'. DiYision Docket~ Vol. 2. pp. 681--689. Exhibit --P-T: HIR Records. pp. 262-:270. Exhibit ""R-T. including sub- markings.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. (Avon), 33 the Supreme Court emphasized that a taxpayer must not only be given an opportunity to present defenses and evidence, but also that the CIR and his subordinates must give due consideration to these. While the CIR is not required to accept the taxpayer's explanations, any rejection must be backed by a clear and reasoned basis. The facts demonstrate that Avon was deprived of due process. It was not fully apprised of the legal and factual bases of the assessments issued against it. The Details of Discrepancy attached to the Preliminary Assessment Notice, as well as the Formal Letter of Demand with the Final Assessment Notices, did not even comment or address the defenses and documents submitted by Avon. Thus, Avon was left unaware on how the Commissioner or her authorized representatives appreciated the explanations or defenses raised in connection with the assessments. There was clear inaction of the Commissioner at every stage of the proceedings. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Assessment Notice, Avon submitted its protest letter and supporting documents, and even met with revenue examiners to explain. Nonetheless, the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued the Final Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices, merely reiterating the assessments in the Preliminary Assessment Notice. There was no comment whatsoever on the matters raised by Avon, or discussion of the Bureau of Internal Revenue's findings in a manner that Avon may know the various issues involved and the reasons for the assessments. Under the Bureau of Internal Revenue's own procedures, the taxpayer is required to respond to the Notice of Informal Conference and to the Preliminary Assessment Notice within 15 days from receipt. Despite Avon's timely submission of a Reply to the Notice of Informal Conference and protest to the Preliminary Assessment Notice, together with supporting documents, the Commissioner and her agents violated their own procedures by refusing to answer or even acknowledge the submitted Reply and protest. The Notice of Informal Conference and the Preliminary Assessment Notice are a part of due process. They give both the taxpayer and the Commissioner the opportunity to settle the case at the earliest possible time without the Ci.R. Nos. 201398-99 & 20 J-l-18-19. October 3. 201 S IPer J. Leon en. Third Di\ isionJ.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X need for the issuance of a Final Assessment Notice. However, this purpose is not served in this case because of the Bureau of Internal Revenue's inaction or failure to consider Avon's explanations. It is true that the Commissioner is not obliged to accept the taxpayer's explanations, as explained by the Court of Tax Appeals. However, when he or she rejects these explanations, he or she must give some reason for doing so. He or she must give the particular facts upon which his or her conclusions are based, and those facts must appear in the record. Indeed, the Commissioner's inaction and omission to give due consideration to the arguments and evidence submitted before her by Avon are deplorable transgressions of Avon's right to due process. The right to be heard, which includes the right to present evidence, is meaningless if the Commissioner can simply ignore the evidence without reason. (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, the issuance of an FLD that merely replicates the PAN, without any indication that respondent's arguments were considered, constitutes a blatant disregard of due process. A side-by-side review of the PAN and the FAN, including their respective "Details of Discrepancies," readily reveals that no meaningful evaluation of respondent's arguments was undertaken. The PAN is not a mere procedural formality but an integral part of procedural due process. 34 It gives both the taxpayer and the BIR a genuine opportunity to resolve issues before a final assessment is made.35 Ignoring the taxpayer's reply reduces this safeguard to an empty ritual, thereby undermining the integrity of the assessment process. While petitioner was not required to accept respondent's explanations, it was duty-bound to provide reasons for rejecting them. Due process demands that the CIR specify the factual and legal grounds for the tax assessment, which must be v reflected in the record. _i-l Commissiona of !memo! Rn�enue l'. C'nioi/ Corporation. G.R. >-Jo. 20-1--WS. August 4-. 2021 [Per J. Hernando. Second Division]. ;" Sci..! Commissioner nf!nternal Rcrenue r . .�lnm l'roducts .\fanufauuring. Inc.. G.R. Nos. 201398-99 & 201418-19. October 3. 2018 [Per J. Leoncn. Third Didsion].

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Po\ver Generation Corporation )(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){ Here, however, petitioner merely stated in the FLD that "[t]he records of the case disclosed that you have not introduced sufficient evidence to throw the validity of our findings." As aptly explained by the Court in Division, this statement is not sufficient to address any of the substantive points raised by respondent in its Reply to the PAN: ... However, said statement is far from compliance with [petitioner]'s duty to give reason in rejecting [respondent]'s explanation and evidence submitted in the Reply and Protest. As an overly-general statement, it fails to give specific reasons for the rejection of [respondent]'s specific arguments. Indeed, this shows that the FLD was issued without due consideration of respondent's Reply to the PAN, in clear violation of due process. The right to be heard, including the right to present evidence, becomes meaningless if the CIR can arbitrarily ignore a taxpayer's submissions without reason.36 Petitioner's failure to consider respondent's defenses, explanations, and supporting documents when concluding that respondent had deficiency tax liabilities does not constitute substantial compliance with due process.37 The fact that respondent subsequently filed a Protest against the FLD does not negate the due process violation.38 In sum, the FAN is void for failure to comply with the due process requirements under the law and relevant jurisprudence. Accordingly, even if the Petition for Review had been timely filed, it must still be denied for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for having been filed out of time and for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 30, 2024, and the Resolution dated October 4, 2024, of the Court's Second v Division are AFFIRMED. 3� Commissioner o(lntemal Re\'1!111/e ,._ .\/oxicare Hl!u!rhcure Co!Jwrarion. G.R. :--Jo. 261065. Jul) 10. 2023 [Per J. Singh. Third Didsion]. citing Commissioner oflmf'mai Ren!ma: ,._ .-hon Products .\lam!(acturing. Inc.. G.R. 1\os. 201398-99 & 201-HS-19. October 3. 2018 [Per J. Leonen. Third Di\�ision]. _n !d. :;s Prime Steel _t/i/1. Incorporated\'. Commissionerq(/nfl!nw/ Rnenue. G.R. No. 249153. September 12. 2022lPer J. Dimaampao. Third DiYisionl. citing Commissionf!r (!( lmt!nwl Ren:nue r honex Phihpph1es Corporation. G.R. No. 222476. May 5. 2021 lP~r C.J. Ci~smundo. First DiYisionl.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation )(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){ SO ORDERED. k.Aiiittnlf WE CONCUR: LAJV:J'~~'cm~rlAVID Associate Justice /l.J. ~ _,_ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�,-~ CATHERINE.?. MANAHAN Associate Justice Associate Justice ~ s-~ F.~ ,faj()/1~ MARIAN 1~. RE-f'ES-FAJARDO Associate Justice ON LEAVE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice HENRY~~NGELES Associate Justice

DECISION CTA EB No. 3021 (CTA Case No. 10372) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bio-Resource Power Generation Corporation X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. a...~)-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Acting Presiding Justice

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.