STEVEN JOHN SEE LIM, Doing Business Under the Name and Style `Uni Elements Enterprises`, Duly Represented by his Attorney in fact, Ms. Ria A. Sablon v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION STEVEN JOHN SEE LIM, CTA CASE NO. 11958 Doing Business Under the Narne and Style 'Uni Members: Elements Enterprises', Duly Represented by his MANAHAN, Chairperson, Attorney-in-fact, Ms. Ria A. REYES-FAJARDO, and Sablon ANGELES, JJ. Petitioner, -versus- THE COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. SEP 0 12025 )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - '-?-;'-f(-p- C-/�-w-r �- - - - - -)( RESOLUTION On May 28, 2025, petitioner filed a Petition for Review dated May 26, 2025 seeking the nullification of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Decision on the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated March 10, 2025. However, petitioner did not electronically file the PDF copy of the Petition within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the paper copies. Pursuant to Court of TaJC Appeals En Bane Resolution No. 8- 2024, the Petition for Review is deemed not filed for failure of petitioner to electronically file the PDF copy of the said Petition within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the paper copies. In addition, a perusal of the Petition shows that the same is replete with defects resulting from non-compliance with the relevant laws, rules and regulations governing such pleading. It was observed that the Petition does not strictly comply with Section 6, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of the Court of TaJC Appeals (RRCTA). In particular, it does not contain the lawyer's Mandatory

.. RESOLUTION CfA CASE NO. 11958 Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) certificate number and the date of issue. Furthermore, the Petition did not include the name/s of witnessjes who will be presented, summary of the said witness/es intended testimonies and their Judicial Affidavits, and a list of documentary and object evidence in support of allegations contained in the pleading, contrary to the requirements under Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court (ROC). WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is deemed not filed and is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ~'7.. ~ CATHERIN� T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~I.V~ Yf F. RE~ fES~Ff,tJ.A~RDO Associate Justice HENRY s/lf}<GELES Associate Justice