CTA Case No. EB CRIM-77 (Resolution on MR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC PEOPLE OF THE CTA EB CRIM. NO. 077 PHILIPPINES, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-660) Petitioner, Present: Del Rosari o, P.J. , Casta neda, Jr. , Uy, R i n g pi s - L i b a n, Manahan, Bacorro- Vi!lena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Faj ardo, and C ui-Dav id, JJ. -versus - JOSE EDUARDO C. DELGADO, and DELBROS, INC., R e s p o n d e nts. x---- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----- ---- --- ---------- ---f-- -- --------------x RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: For resolution o f the Court En Bane is petiti oner's M otion for R econs ideration 1 fil ed on July I, 202 1. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the D ecision of the Court En Bane promulgated on June 9, 202 1,2 (Assailed Decision) deny ing th e prese nt Petition for Rev iew for lack of me ri t. Responde nts fi led the ir Co mm ent/Opposition Against Motion fo r Reconsideration [Re: D ecision Dated 09 June 202 1] v ia registered mail on October 27, 2021. ~ 1 Court En Bane Doc l-.ct. pp. 93-10 I. 2 !d.. pp. 67-92.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 077 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-660) Page 2 of3 In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner asked this Court to reconsider respondents' civil liability. Petitioner argues that the right of the BIR to collect is based on a valid assessment that is final, executory and demandable and that respondents are liable to pay deficiency internal revenue taxes for the year 2008.3 Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the BIR failed to prove that they received the assessment notices. Respondents also assert that no new letter of authority was issued authorizing the reassigned revenue officer to examine respondents' books. Finally, respondents maintain that the issues and arguments raised in the present motion for reconsideration are mere rehash and repetition of the same issues and arguments already raised and duly passed upon by this Court. There being no matters or issues raised to warrant reversal thereof, the motion for reconsideration must be denied. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration shall be denied. A careful review of the case records and the arguments raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration reveals that the arguments relied upon are mere reiterations or restatement of the matters which have already been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner failed to raise any new or substantial matter or any compelling reason that will justify reversal or even modification of the Court En Bane's findings. Accordingly, the Court En Bane stands by its ruling that petitioner's evidence miserably failed to satisfactorily prove that respondents actually received the PAN, FLD and Assessment Notices. Hence, the failure of petitioner to prove actual receipt of the assessment notices by respondents leads to the conclusion that no assessment was validly issued. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no plausible reason to deviate from its ruling in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. sz.<.-.-~~r:- c -~�~~ a .iUANITO c. CASTANEDA0R. Associate Justice J /d., pp. 94-99.

RESOLUTION CTA EB CRIM. NO. 077 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-660) Page3of3 WE CONCUR: (I rezterate my ConcuMng Opinion.) ERL~UY ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice Associate Justice ~.~ A"L___ (I reiterate my concurrence wilh the Concurring & Dissenting Opinion ofJustice Vil/ena.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~�.7'~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ......... (I reiterate my Co~ing & Dissenting Opinion.) JEAN MARtE A..hACORRO-VILLENA Justice ~ ~t1~-~=~ MARIAN Iv-v(}. REYiS-FAJ((Roo Associate Justice llr#MtfJMrtJ. LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice