NCR CORPORATION PHILIPPINES, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2967 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10498) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, ]]. NCR CORPORATION Promulgated: PHILIPPINES, Respondent. SEP 15 2026 X---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J: For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated March 23, 2026) flied on April 7, 2026, with respondent's Comment (to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) flied on May 4, 2026. Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of the Court's decision, which affirmed the court a quo's decision and voided the assessment against respondent on the grounds that the Revenue Officer (RO) lacked authority to conduct the audit1 and that respondent's right to due process was violated when petitioner merely reiterated verbatim its Preliminary Assessment N otice (PAN) findings in the y 1 Decision, Rollo, pp. 105-108.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2967 (CTA CASE NO. 10498) Forma! Letter of Demand (FLD), without considering respondent's defenses in its Rep!J to the PAlV' Respondent opposed the motion on the grounds that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90 continues to be applicable to assessments, the absence of the Letter of Authority issued to RO Abigail Caybyab to conduct the audit renders the present assessment void and, finally, there was violation of due process in the light of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products lviamtfacttm'ng, Inc} which held that the issuance of identical P z\N and Formal z\ssessment Notice (FAN) is an indication that the Bureau oflnternal Revenue (BIR) did not consider the taxpayer's explanations contained in its protest. The Court is tmcom;inced and must, therefore, deny the motion. The Court notes that the arguments in the motion are the very same points raised in the petition filed with the Court• and need not be addressed anew in this resolution. All these matters were already considered and extensively discussed by the Court En Bane in the assailed decision. In the case of Shangri-L:l International Hotel Management Ltd., et a!. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 5 the Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its ,~ery nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasi,·e to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behou\·es movant to conYince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law ...As it is, however, the instant motion docs not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." In v1ew of the foregoing, the Court En Bane deems it unnecessary to reiterate the foregoing discussions, as doing so would serve no purpose beyond superfluityr 2 Jd., pp. 109-113. 3 G.R. Nos. 201398-99 and 201418-19 dated October 3, 2018. 4 Rollo, pp. 21-39. 5 G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2967 (CTA CASE NO. 10498) ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Niotion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated March 23, 2026) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~.~I-..____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: ' ' JEAN MARIE ~~0-VILLENA ~~c~ate Jusnce I . J . l ·frrrk ~L MARIA R0WEN\_MO ESTO-SAN PEDRO 1 Associate ustice ~ L F ~ · F~l'A.dt> MARIAN IviJF. REYiS~FAJA.RDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID "\ssociatc Justice ~~.~ CO~N G. 'f'E~RE!M'~RES Associate Justice HENRY~GELES Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2967 (CTA CASE NO. 10498) • DEBBIE} I. CENTENO-DIJAMCO Associate Justice