COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (PHILIPPINES), LIMITED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2878 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9998) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO MANAHAN, (PHILIPPINES), LIMITED, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Respondent. REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: X --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 27 November 2024), fi led on December 13, 2024, with respondent's Comment [On Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated November 27, 2024) dated December 12, 2024], filed on January 22, 2025, assailing this Court's Decision, dated November 27, 2024. The Motion is bereft of merit. First, petitioner's arguments on respondent's exhaustion of administrative remedies simply rehashes his previous points while staying completely silent on the doctrine laid down in Commissioner of Internalj

RESOU"TIO:\ CTA EB No. 2878 (CTA Case No. 9998) Page 2 of3 Revenue v. Carrier Air Conditioning Philippines, Inc. 1 It thus fails to challenge the Court's ruling on the issue. Second, petitioner claims that this Court did not mention how the evidence presented by respondent was available right after the Court in Division had resolved petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence, but before the case was submitted for decision. The claim, however, is blatantly false. In the assailed Decision, the Court En Bane specifically observed that the Certificate of No Outstanding Tax Liability and Certificate of Withdrawal of License of a Foreign Corporation were available on July 29, 2020, and June 16, 2021, respectively. The case was submitted for decision on July 7, 2020. To clarify, July 29, 2020, is 22 days after July 7, 2020. Meanwhile June 16,2021, is 344 days, almost a year, after July 7, 2020. Considering the above, petitioner's claim that the evidence was available before the case was submitted for decision is false. His claim that the order of events was not mentioned by the Court in the assailed Decision is also false. 2 There being no factual basis to petitioner's arguments, the same must be rejected. In sum, the Motion must be denied. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 27 November 2024), filed on December 13, 2024, is hereby DENIED. The Decision, dated November 27, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIA ROWEN I As G.R. No. 226592. July 27, 2021. We concede that, technically. the Court did not mention how the evidence was available before the case was submitted for decision. However. We did not mention this simply because the claim is false, as discussed.

RESOLLTIO:\ CTA LB :Jo. 2878 (CTA Cast! No. 9998) Page 3 of3 WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ..., ~. ~ "--...._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~~i~/kt-C-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ' ..._ MART~~O-VILLENA JEAN a~ciate Justice ~~F.~.f=~~ MARIAN~Y F. RiYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~~ID Associate Justice C~NAvsso~ciat~e J:O~~R~/ES HENRY s/tGELES Associate Justice