IMA LAND HOLDINGS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Third Division IMA LAND HOLDINGS, INC., CTA CASE NO. 9505 Petitioner, Members: UY, Chairperson, -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated : REVENUE, , Respondent. e:::::3 : ' __..J_"J-. _:_J..y..fl:~~------ x X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before this Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, filed on 15 January 2021 ,1 with petitioner's Opposition/Comment (against respondent's motion for reconsideration) ("Comment"), filed on 22 January 2021. 2 In the Motion for Reconsideration, respondent alleges that: 1. The llonorable Court erred in ruling that the failure of the new revenue officer to secure a new Letter of Authority ("LOA"), as provided in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90, results in lack of authority of the revenue officer and, as a consequence thereof, renders the assess ment invalid; 2. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that a new LOA must be issued to a new revenue officer assigned to examine a taxpayer's books of accounts; 3. A Memorandum of Assignment may be issued by the head of the investigating office; and}/ 1 Records. 2 Ibid.

RESOLIJTION CTA CASE NO. 9505 Page 2 of2 4. The Honorable Court erred in ruling that respondent failed to observe the fifteen-day period given to taxpayers to file a Reply to the Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN"). Respondent did not violate petitioner's right to due process. In its Comment, petitioner counter-argued the following: 1. The absence of a validly issued LOA to conduct an audit of a petitioner's books of accounts renders the present assessment void; and 2. Non-observance of the 15-day period to protest the PAN violates petitioner's right to due process, which similarly rendered the instant assessment void. We deny the Motion for Reconsideration. Following a studied review of the arguments raised by respondent, it appears that these have already been sufficiently passed upon, discussed, and judiciously resolved in the Decision, dated 23 November 2020. The Motion discloses no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions which this Court made in said Decision. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ~. ~ _4 ---(____ ER~P.UY MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice