COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SONOMA SERVICES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2891 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10272) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting P.J, -versus- MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, Jl. SONOMA SERVICES, INC., P ro mulgated: � Respondent. NOV 2 1 2025 ~ -- BW;~.,;-;:~ X------.---- - -- ------------- -------- -- --- RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,.J_: T his resolves P e titio ner's " fo tion fo r Recon sideration" 1 flied o n June 13, 2025 via registered mail, with Respondent's "Comment (Re: fotion for Reconsideration)"2 flied o n July 16, 2025. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the setting aside of the Court En Banis Decision3 dated fay 30, 2025, and the issuance of another decision ruling that Respondent is not entitled to a tax refund or issuance of a tax credit for calendar year 2017. T he dispositive portion of the Decision promulgated by this Court on l'viay 30, 2025 reads: f Rollo, pp. 88-98. 2 Id., pp. 101-114. 3 Id., pp. 68-77 .

RESOLUTION CfA EB NO. 2891 (CfA Case No. 10272) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 22, 2023 ami Resolution dated i\Iarch 01, 2024 of the Special Pirst Division in CL-\ Case No. 10272 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."" In his 1\Iotion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that for failure by Respondent to file its petition with the Court of Tax c\ppeals Special First Division until January 20, 2020, the same was filed out of time. Petitioner maintains that since the last month covered by its claim for tax refund is December 2017, the two (2)-year prescriptive period under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the Nationallnternal Revenue Code ("NIRC") of 1997, as amended, falls on January 20, 2020. c\nd yet, the Petition for Review was filed only on April 08, 2020. Petitioner also claims that Respondent failed to prove its prior years excess credits as reported in its :\mended c\nnual Income Tax Return (""-\ITR") for calendar year 2017. In this case, the submitted AITRs for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 were not made under oath- in clear contravention of the law; thus, should not be admitted as evidence of payment of tax. i\Ioreover, Petitioner submits that Respondent failed to show that the tax subject of the case was erroneously or illegally collected applying the presun1ption of regularity. Lastly, Petitioner emphasizes that a claim for refund is strictly construed against the taxpayer. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment (Re: :\lotion for Reconsideration), manifests that Petitioner's motion raises no new ground that would warrant a reversal of the Assailed Decision. Additionally, Respondent asserts that its administrative and judicial claims for refund of excess and unutilized C\'VT for calendar year 2017 were filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Finally, Respondent points out that it has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund of or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of Php5,437,000_QO- (a) its excess and unutilized C\VT arc duly substantiated~ 4 !d., Decision dated May 30, 2025, p. 76.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2891 (CTA Case No. 10272) documentary evidence, (b) the income upon which the CWTs being claimed for refund were \vithhdd was reported as part of the revenues declared in its AITR, and (c) it did not carry over its excess and unutilized C\'X/Ts for calendar year 2017 to the succeeding taxable periods. We resolve to deny Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" for lack of ment. The arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion arc mere recapitulation of the arguments raised in his Petition for Review filed with this Court. In addition, these issues have been amply considered, weighed, and resolved in the Decision promulgated on J\Iay 30, 2025. Thus, \'Ve shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to overturn the assailed Decision dated J\Iay 30, 2025 which affirmed the Decision dated September 22, 2023 and Resolution dated J\Iarch 01, 2024 of the Court of Tax c\ppeals Special First Division. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. t. ~./I'-- WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice (On Leave) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN },ssociate Justice MARIARO?

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2.891 (CTA Case No. 102.72.) Associate Justice MA~RIgANWlV�Y~.rRE�~�--FtA.~A�R~DO Associate Justice ~b{;n~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice ~./ )//,~~ CORAB::5N G. FERRER-FLO~S .\ssociatc Justice HENRY //tGELES "\ssociate Justice