COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ACQUIRE ASIA PACIFIC PHILIPPINES, INC.

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezo n City En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB Case No. 1122 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8465) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, Pj, CASTANEDA, JR., ACQUIRE ASIA PACIFIC BAUTISTA, PHILIPPINES, INC., UY, CASANOVA, Respondent. FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and RINGPIS-LIBAN, J1. Promulgated: RESOLUTION CASANOVA,L_: Submitted for consideration is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (to the Notice of Decision dated November 26, 2014)" filed on December 10, 2014, with respondent's "Comment (on Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 December 2014)" filed through registered mail on February 16, 2015. In her Motion, petitioner alleges that the Court En Bane erred in its Decision1 ("assailed Decision") when it declared that respondent was able to fully substantiate its claim for refund despite failing to submit certain documents required by Revenue Officer Mariflor Ayen-Exmundo~ t Dated Novem ber 26,2014, CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 72-82

RESOLUTION CTA EB Case No. 11 22 (CTA Case No. 8465) of ROO No. 41 in her Letter2 dated June 13, 2012. Petitioner likewise asserts that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies. On the other hand, respondent asserts that the arguments raised by petitioner are mere reiterations of the arguments sufficiently passed upon and decided by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. Respondent claims that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration should be considered pro forma. After due consideration, We find no merit in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Upon careful scrutiny of the arguments proffered by petitioner in her Motion and, as correctly pointed out by respondent, We find that the discussions therein are mere rehash of the same facts and issues which have already been analyzed and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. The grounds raised by the petitioner in her motion did not raise anything new to merit reconsideration thereof. Hence, as stated in the fal/o of the Decision promulgated on November 26, 2014, the Court En Bane finds no cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusions reached in the Decision and Resolution dated December 13, 2013 and February 5, 2014, respectively, rendered by the CTA Third Division in CTA Case No. 8465. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (to the Notice of Decision dated November 26, 2014) is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. CAESAR~ANOVA Associate Justice z Marked as Exhibit "1-b" for Res pondent (petitioner herein), BIR Recor ds

~ RESOLUTION CTA EB Case No. 1122 (CTA Case No. 8465) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Q.c. QT~ Q LOVELLR. JUANfTO c. CASTANEDA(fk. Associ a Associate Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice (On Lt:r��r:.' ~~,/~+~/- CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice ~.~ � J....... -6 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice