8199 CONVENIENCE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC 8199 CONVENIENCE CTA EB NO. 1912 CORPORATION, (CTA Case No. 8853) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RING PIS- LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,JL COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, J.: For the Court's Resolution is a Motion for Reconsideration1 (MR) filed by petitioner 8199 Convenience Corporation (petitioner/8199), without respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (respondent/CIR's) comment/opposition thereto. The motion seeks the reversal of this Court's Decision dated 03 September 2 in the 2020 above-captioned case. The dispositive portion ofwhich reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioner 8199 Convenience Corporation's Petition for Review filed on o 7 Filed on 30 September 2020, Rollo, pp. 130- 137. Id., pp. 11 7-129

RESOLUTION CTA EB No.1912 (CTA Case No. 8853) 8199 Convenience Corporation v. CIR Page Z of4 X------------------------ --X September 2018 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 02 February 2018 and Resolution on 31 July 2018 of the First Division in CTA Case No. 8853, entitled 8199 Convenience Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue are hereby AFFIRMED. In its present MR, petitioner changes its whole theory of the case and as a result, raises an entirely new issue. It now argues that the assessment should have been voided on the ground that the appointment of Revenue Officer Josephine Reyes (RO Reyes) by a mere Memorandum ofAssignment3 (MOA). We now resolve. It will be recalled that petitioner, both in its Petitions for Review before the Court in Division4 and the Court En Banc5, challenged the assessment's validity on account of the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR's) use of the "best evidence obtainable" rule in conducting its audit investigation of 8199. At this point, petitioner must be reminded of the functions of an MR. In Sps. Mendiola v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 6 the Supreme Court explains, thus: , A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the case, but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues, contentions, and evidence either because: (a) the damages awarded are excessive; or (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order; or (c) the decision or final order is contrary to law. While it is true that this Court is not bound by the technical rules of evidence7, it is also equally true that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be entertained because to do so would be anathema to the rudiments offairness and due process./( Exhibit "R-24'', Division Docket, Volume Ill, p. 1638. ld., Volume I, pp. 6-18. Rollo, pp. 5-15. G.R. No. 159746, 18 July 2012. BPI-Family Savings Bank v. Court ofAppeals. et al., G.R. No. 122480, 12 April2000. Punongbayan-Visitacion v. People ofthe Philippines. et al., G.R. No. 194214, 10 January 2018

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1912 (CTA Case No. 8853) 8199 Convenience Corporation v. C!R X------------------------- -X At any rate, a review of the records shows that the assessment of petitioner was carried out by BIR officers pursuant to a valid Letter of Authority (LOA). The Preliminary Assessment Notice9 (PAN) and Formal Letter of Demand10 (FLD) were attained through the efforts of RO Remigio N. Tiangco, Jr. (RO Tiangco) who was authorized under LOA No. 2009-00022985n after petitioner had repeatedly failed to supply the BIR with the requested documents. The records further yield that the assailed MOA was issued only after petitioner filed its protest to the PAN and FLD on o6 February 2013.12 A perusal thereof reveals that the same was not issued for the continuation of petitioner's audit or to replace the previously assigned revenue officer but only for the purpose of reinvestigation. As a result of petitioner's protest, the BIR made a new request for documents. However, just like it had done previously, petitioner again failed to supply the BIR with the requested documents. Consequently, Regional Director Simplicia A. Madulara (RD Madulara), through a lettd3 dated 28 January 2014, informed petitioner of the finality of the previous assessment for its failure to submit supporting documents within sixty (6o) days of its protest pursuant to Section 228'4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Moreover, the records clearly show that the BIR conducted no further investigation or assessment after petitioner had filed its protest. Instead, RD Madulara merely reiterated the finality of the previously issued PAN and FLD due to petitioner's failure to perfect its _ protest due to its own refusal to submit the BIR requested documents/ 9 Exhibit "R-17", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1628-1629. 10 Exhibits "P-13" to "P-13-1", id., Volume 11, pp. 1165-1166. II Exhibit "P-1", id., p. 1069. 12 Exhibits "P-14" to "P-14-2", id., pp. 1170-1175. 13 Exhibit "P-19", id., p. 1197. 14 SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notifY the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No.1912 (CTA Case No. 8853) 8199 Convenience Corporation v. CIR Page 4 of4 X------------------------- -X Therefore, aside from the issue of RO Reyes' authority being raised too late in the day, it would appear that the assessment of petitioner was nevertheless valid. WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioner 8199 Convenience Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration filed on 30 September 2020 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Court's assailed Decision dated 03 September 2020 in CTA EB No. 1912, entitled 8199 Convenience Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ....... 0-VILLENA WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~-t;>C.Q.:t-~ Q. ER~P.UY rffANrro c. CAsTANEDA,C}R. Associate Justice Associate Justice c~ 7-,4�.....~ - 9b.t. ~e.. _4/L__ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice