COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. KOKOLOKO NETWORK CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2197 REVEN UE, (CTA Case No. 9574) Petitioner, -versus- P re s ent: D el Rosario, P.J.) Castaneda, Jr., Uy, Ringpis-Liban, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, and Cui-David, ]]. � KOKOLOKO NETWORK 22 CORPORAT ION, P romqJ.g3tSisi ~AN 0 bj.lL~ -a Respondent. ~ d.'/DLJ"""' ~ -� x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --:.:-----------x � RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J .: For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 03 June 2021)" 1 ftled on July 1, 2021. In the instant motion, petitioner avers that the Court erred in ruling that the Revenue Officers have no authority to conduct the audit examination; that the Memorandum of Assignment subsequently issued derived its authority from the original Letter of Authority initially issued; that the source of the revenue officer's authority to investigate is not the Memorandum or any other document, but the validly issued Letter of Authority; that the Court erred in ruling that respondent's right to due process was violated for failure on the part of petitioner to prove by competent evidence that respondent received the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Formal Assessment Notice (FAN), /V" 'Docket, CL\ ER NO. 2197, pp. 122-131.

Resolution CTA EB NO. 2197 (CTA CASE NO. 9574) and petitioner failed to observe the mandatory procedure for issuing deficiency tax assessment. On August 24, 2021, respondent ftled its "Comment/Opposition [Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 3 June 2021)]."2 After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 3 June 2021)" The Court En Bane notes that petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et aL vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc./ 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 very 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 persuasive 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 behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." In view of the foregoing, the Court En Bane will no longer belabor to repeat its discussions in the assailed Decision since it would only result to mere superfluity.? 2 Ibid., pp. 135-151. 3 G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007.

Resolution CTA EB NO. 2197 (CfA CASE NO. 9574) WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (En Bane Decision dated 03 June 2021)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. fN. ~ .-r~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I reiterate my Co~ng Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice JU~CI~TOtC:. CcAS.TA~NE/DA~:,�JR. Associate Jus rice ERL~.UY ~~ �y: ~:uu-,M~--- Associate Jusrice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Jusrice JEAN lVU\.ft�=- VILLENA MARIA Rownb~r' 1m. M~ ARIk AN t~ RE~- -FAr JA4R1 D~O 1/turtM Associate Justice LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice