COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ACTUATE BUILDERS, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTAEB No. 2298 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9206) Petitioner, Present: -versus~ Del Rosario, P.J., Castaileda, Jr., Uy, Rin gp is- Liba n , Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, and Cui-David, Jl ACTUATE BUILDERS, INC. Promulgated: Respondent. APR 1 92022 . � --~--~-'-~-..x X--------------------------------- -- -----------------------------~ ~� ~ ~. RESOLUTION RINGPI S-L I B A N , . l ; For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration1 flied via registered mail on November 17, 2021 and received by the Court on November 25, 2021, with respondent Actuate Builders, Inc.'s Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 N ovember 202 1j2 filed on N ovember 29, 2021. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court E n Bane promulgated on October 29, 2021,3 ("Assailed Decision") affirming the ~ 1 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 114-123. 2 !d., pp. 127-133. 3 !d., pp. 85-100.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2298 (CTA Case No. 9206) Page2of4 judgment of the Second Division ("Court in Division") of this Court in CTA Case No. 9206. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 12, 2020 and the Resolution dated June 16, 2020 of the Second Division in CTA Case No. 9206 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." In his Motion, petitioner maintains that if the taxpayer is found liable for taxes other than the erroneously paid final tax, the amount of the taxpayer's liability should be computed and deducted from the refunded amount.4 He insists that the Supreme Court cases of Air Canada v. Commissioner of Internal Rtvenul' and SMI-ED Philippines Technolo!!J, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Rtvenul' apply to the present case. Petitioner also claims that respondent fell short of the invoicing requirements under Section 113 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended.7 Petitioner also posits that respondent's exhibits should not be given any probative value for being hearsay evidence and that the documentary exhibits that are not commercial documents or papers must be testified and identified by persons who had a hand in the preparation of the said documents.8 On the other hand, respondent, in its Comment submits that the Motion merely rehashes the arguments in the Petition for Review which were already rejected by this Court.9 Respondent also asserts that the Air Canada and SMI-ED cases are not applicable to the present case given the difference of factual milieu between these cases and the present case.10 Moreover, the Motion failed to specify the errors in the Division Decision, both with respect to the alleged hearsay evidence and to the documentary evidence allegedly improperly considered by the Division.11 After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for lack of merit. The Court En Bane maintains its position that Air Canada and SMI-ED do not apply to the present case. Petitioner's position presupposes that the Court in Division had discovered certain tax liabilities which respondent failed to pay and --- 4 !d., pp. 114-118. 5 G.R. No. 169507, January 11, 2016 ("Air canada"). 6 G.R. No. 175410, November 12, 2014 ("SMI-ECJ'). 7 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 118-120. 8 !d., pp. 120-122. 9 !d., p. 127. 10 !d., pp. 128-129. 11 !d., pp. 129-130.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2298 (CTA Case No. 9206) Page3of4 then did not offset against the awarded refund. As previously stated in the Assailed Decision, the Court in Division never had such a finding. Neither does the petitioner allege or identify what tax liability he believes to be due and unpaid that should be deducted from the awarded refund. The Court En Bane likewise stands by its ruling that petitioner failed to specify deficient invoices alleged in the Petition and also failed to identify the witnesses allegedly uttering hearsay testimonies or to specify in what respect their testimonies constitute hearsay. In this regard, petitioner's position is tantamount to a general averment of error that is not cognizable by this Court. In sum, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~.~ -4~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~Z';;C.~ Q. jUANITO C. CASTANEDA,'J'R.'. Associate Justice E~AP.UY Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2298 (CTA Case No. 9206) ~ c~ /-~uUcc..(.~~-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ..- JEAN MARIARO ~a-~ f.~ ~F~ MARIAN IViJF. RE~S-FAfARDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice