COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GRAND GEO SPHERES CONSTRUCTION CORP.

... .. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2778 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10207) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ GRAND GEO SPHERES Promulgated: CONSTRUCTION CORP., NOV i 8 2021t Respondent. X --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ X RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court' s resolution is petitioner's Motion fo r Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated July 12, 2024), filed on August 7, 2024, with respondent's Comment (To Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue 's Motion for Reconsideration dated 6 August 2024), filed via licensed courier on August 19, 2024. Petitioner assails the Court' s Decision, dated July 12, 2024, which denied the instant Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Motion is likewise bereft of merit. Petitioner raises two major arguments: (1) that he duly served the subject assessment notices to respondent via registered mail; and (2) that respondent's underdeclaration of its taxable sales justified the use of the extended 10-year prescriptive period for assessments. ,.

RESOU"TIO:\ CTA EB '\Jo. 2778 {CTA Casl! '\Jo. 102071 Page 2 of3 Both arguments ignore the actual reasons given by the Court En Bane for its findings on the corresponding issues. The claim of valid service is undermined by the distinction between mailing assessment notices and receiving them, a distinction discussed in the assailed Decision and based on Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Yumex Philippines Corporation 1 ("Yumex"). The claim also completely ignores the Court in Division's finding that respondent actually failed to strictly comply with the rules on mailing assessment notices, specifically Section 3.1.6(iii), Paragraph 2 ofRevenue Regulations ("RR") No. 12-99. as amended by RR No. 18-13. Meanwhile, petitioner's argument that respondent's underdeclarationjustified the use ofthe extend 10-year period is similarly refuted by Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. BF Goodrich, Phils., Inc} the operative jurisprudence when petitioner issued the Preliminary Assessment Notice, and Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., the operative jurisprudence when petitioner issued the Final Assessment Notices, both of which required the presence of willful intent before resort to the extended I 0-year period could be made. As with Yumex and RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, this was already discussed by the ComtEn Bane in the assailed Decision. Petitioner thus failed to address the actual specific reasons for the Court En Bane's denial of his Petition. Consequently, said reasons remain unchallenged, and the questioned denial must stand. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated July 12, 2024), filed on August 7, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated July 12, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice G.R. No. 222476. May 5. 2021. G.R. No. 104171. February 24. 1999.

<tESOLlTIO'> CTA EB l\o. 2778 (CTA Case No_ 10207) Page 3 of3 ?Jv. ~ - -...____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~-7- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ~~If'~-~~ MARIAN IVY fJ. REYE@FAJAltDO Associate Justice /tttmitnl; LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Co~G'~~RES Associate J u s 7 ON LEAVE HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice