The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat V. Shri Bhupendra Chhaganlal Popat, Surat

ITA 1064/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 106420514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Retraction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1064/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ACIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. SHRI BHUPENDRA CHHAGANLAL POPAT, 47-A, KRISHNAKUNJ SOCIETY, BAISWA INDOOR STADIUM, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAVPP8082A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S A BOHRA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAPNESH SHETH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 30.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.06.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) II, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.01.2009 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF P ROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE U/ S. 132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT AND THERE WAS A MERE REVISION OF INCOME WHILE FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME. I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REVISION FROM VOLUNTARI LY DISCLOSED INCOME WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO RETRACTION AND MERE R EVISION OF DISCLOSED INCOME. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLAIMED CANCELLATIO N OF THE IMPUGNED LAND DEAL WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CANCELLATION. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE BINDING NATURE OF T HE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 132(4) CAN BE VIOLATE D WITHOUT ANY ADMISSIBLE BASIS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A .O. 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 & 2.1 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 2. THERE WERE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14-12-2005. THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY DISCLOSED RS.1.5 CRORES ON BEHALF OF GROUP CASES WITH INCLUDED PROFIT OF RS .50/- LACS IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF LAND AT RS NO. 17/1 8, BLOCK NO. 21, SABARGAM, DIST. SURAT AN AREA OF 23371 SQ. METE RS. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.81,71,000/- (INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.8,10,799/- AND ALSO INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.74/-LAC S). DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, INITIALLY, THE ASSES SEE HAD STATED THAT THERE WAS A PROFIT OF RS. 50,00,000/- IN RESPE CT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF LAND AT RS NO. 17718, BLOCK N-O. 21, SABARG AM AN AREA OF 23371 SQ. METER. THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE FOR RS.4. 63 CRORES. THIS WAS STATED ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2005 IN HIS STATEMENT U/S. 132 (4) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DEA LING IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND WAS CANCELLED AND THE ASSESSEE AGA IN STATED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2006 THAT NO SUCH PROFIT OF RS.50,00,000/- ACCRUES ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION O F DEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED CANCELLATION OF DEAL AS RETRACTION OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S. 132 (4) OF THE ACT ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2005. 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS. UNDER: I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 3 'THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE LAND DEAL HAS ACTUALL Y BEEN CANCELLED AND NO PROFIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE LIES ON HIM. FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL INTO THE CONTRACT OF SELLING THE RIGHTS OF LAND AT SABARGAM, R.S.NO.17/18, BLOCK NO.21 AND ALSO HAD RE CEIVED CERTAIN SUMS AS PER THE CONTRACT IS SUFFICIENT TO D RAW THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE PROFIT AS DISCLOSED IN VOLUNTARY STATEMENT MADE U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. SUCH PRESUMPTION HAS BEEN FURTHER REINFORCED BY THE INITIAL CONFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN U /S.132(4) AND VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FURNISHED BEFORE THE DEPARTMEN T. THE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE BEING A VALID STATE MENT RECORDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) AND THEREFOR E, THE ADMISSION CONTAINED THEREIN REGARDING THE ACCRUAL OF PROFIT H AS AN EVIDENTIARY VALUE FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS TO THE PRESENTLY UNADMITTED INCOME. IN FACT S OF THE ABOVE ONUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SQUARELY FAILED TO ADDUCE AN Y ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE FACT OF EARNING OF ANY PROFIT FROM THE LAND DEAL. IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE OF PROFIT EARNED FROM LAND DEALINGS AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTR ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH A SIMPL E DENIAL.' !N VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REGISTERED THE SATAKHAT WIT H THE REGISTRAR OF PROPERTIES AS IS REQUIRED. 2. THE CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL HAS NOT B EEN REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. THUS, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID DOCUMENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION OF RETURN OF SUMS REC EIVED WAS GENUINE. THUS, IN LIGHT OF FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CANCELLA TION OF DEAL -AND RETURN OF SUMS RECEIVED, IT IS TREATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS EARNED AND RECEIVED PROFIT FROM THE LAND DEAL AS EVIDENCED BY THE SATAKHAT. 4. SINCE THE ACTUAL LAND RIGHTS IN, THE LOCAL AUTH ORITY'S RECORDS DO NOT REFLECT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE VER IFIED WHETHER IN REALITY THE DEAL ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN CANCELLED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT MADE U/S. 132(4) HAD V OLUNTARILY STATED THAT PROFIT OF RS.50,00,000/- HAS BEEN EARNE D ON ACCOUNT OF RATE DIFFERENCE ON LAND. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO SEA RCH OPERATIONS, I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 4 CERTAIN AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY CHEQUES CLAIM ED TO BE THE INCOME RECEIVED FOR SAND SALE. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROFIT EARNED HAS ALSO BEEN RETURNED, THEREFORE , THE SAME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN LIGHT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CATEGORI CALLY ESTABLISH THAT NO PROFIT HAS BEEN RETAINED/RECEIVED FROM THE LAND DEAL, IT IS TAKEN THAT THE DEAL HAS BEEN FINALIZED AND EXECUTED AND P ROFIT HAS BEEN BOOKED. THE CANCELLATION OF SATAKHAT BEING CREATED AFTER TH E SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, IS TAKEN TO .BE AN AFTER-THOUGH T AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ADMISSIBL E EVIDENCE.' - THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISI ONS ARE OF RS.50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PROFIT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION OF RS.50 L ACS AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANSI BUI LDERS LTD. VS ACIT IN I.T.A.NO. 914/AHD/2009 DATED 30.09.2011. HE SUBMIT TED COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 TO 5.5 OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SIMILA R FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BA SIS OF SUCH MOU AS PER WHICH THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF A PROP ERTY AND ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BUT LATER ON, SUCH ADVANCES AMO UNTING TO RS.21 LACS WAS REFUNDED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARS 2.3 TO 2.6 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 5 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLANT. THE RATIOS EMERGING FROM THE CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON, ARE AS .UNDER: I) IN SUSHILADEVI AGRAWAL 50 ITD 524 THE TR IBUNAL OBSERVED THAT 'ALL THAT WE WISH, TO SAY BUT WITH LITTLE EMPH ASIS, IS THAT ALL THAT IS STATED BY ANY DEPONENT OF THE SEARCH DAY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THE TRUTH, 'THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRU TH. SUCH STATEMENTS INDUBITABLY HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND C REDIBILITY IN LAW, BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH GREAT CAUTI ON PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME IS DENIED, VARIED OR RETRACTED. II) IF A PERSON AT A LATTER STAGE RETRACTS F ROM THE STATEMENT GIVEN ON THE SEARCH DAY, THEN THE COURT OR THE TRIBUNAL S HOULD TRY TO ASCERTAIN REASONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES FROM SUCH PERSON FOR DOING SO AND IF SATISFIED, NOT TO PLACE HEAVY RELIANCE ON SU CH EARLIER STATEMENT WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN DENIED AND RE TRACTED. III) THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GU JARAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHYAMLAL DEVELOPERS IN TAX APPEAL NO. 14 09 OF 2005 DATED 04/09/2006 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF A PERS ON RETRACTS THE DISCLOSURE MADE U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, TO WHICH PR ESUMPTION OF REBUTTAL IS ALSO ATTESTED AND THE PERSON IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THE HELP OF MATERIAL THAT SUCH ADMISSION WAS EITHER MISTAKEN OR UNTRUE, THEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADMISSION, ADDITION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE FACTS OF CASE EMERGING OUT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, INITIALLY, THE APPEL LANT HAD STATED THAT THERE IS A PROFIT OF RS.50,00,-000/- IN RESPEC T OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF LAND AT RS NO.17/18, BLOCK NO.21, SABARGAM AN AREA OF 23371 SQ. METER. THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE FOR RS.4. 63 CRORES. THIS WAS STATED ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2005 IN HIS STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT AGAIN STATED IN HIS STATEMEN T RECORDED ON 3 RD FEBRUARY,2.006, THAT NO SUCH PROFIT OF RS.50,00,000 7- ACCRUES ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF DEAL. THE APPELLANT HAD TECHNICALLY CORRECTED THE FACTS WHICH WERE STATED EARLIER IN HI S STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED IN TH E POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF CANCELLATION OF LA ND DEAL IS SUPPORTED BY LEGAL DISPUTE NOTICE, DEED OF CANCELLATION AND R ETURN OF MONEY BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 6 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE FURTHER ENQUIRY FROM CONCERNED PARTY THAT THE CLAIM OF CANCELLATION OF D EED IS NOT CORRECT NEITHER THE RETURN OF MONEY IS DOUBTED. WHEN THERE IS CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF RETURN OF MONEY, IT CANNOT BE HELD NON GENUINE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY BECAUSE, CANCELLATION OF DEED IS NOT REGISTERED WIT H REGISTERING AUTHORITY. THUS, THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS ACCEPTABLE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF RETRACTION BUT IT IS CORRECTION OF EARLIER STATE MENT AFTER ITS LAND DEAL WAS CANCELLED. ON THE BASIS OF REAL INCOME THE ORY, WHEN NO INCOME IS EARNED AS DEAL IS NOT MATERIALIZED OR CAN CELLED, IT CANNOT BE TAXED. . . 2.5 THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THIS CASE. IN THE CASE OF DR. S. C. GUPTA VS GIT 248 ITR 782 (ALL. HIGH COURT), THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED' CERTAIN INCOME DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS LATER ON RETRACTED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TH AT THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT WAS WRONG AND IN FA CT, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOT RETRACTION B UT REVISION OF DISCLOSURE. SECONDLY, BOTH THE STATEMENTS WERE RECO RDED BEFORE THE SAME ADIT. THIRDLY, NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED THAT THE DEAL OF LAND WAS CANCELLED AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON TH IS FACT. THUS, IT WAS PROVED THAT THE INITIAL STATEMENT ON 14.12.2005 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ACTUA LLY EARNED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN T HIS CASE. SIMILARLY, THE FACTS IN OTHER CASES RELIED ON BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE ALSO DIFFERENT AND NOT APPLICABLE HERE . 2.6 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND RATIO OF CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APP ELLANT, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUS TIFIED AND THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED RELIEF ON THIS GROUND. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY L D. CIT(A) THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT DONE FURTHER INQUIRY FORM THE CONCERNE D PARTY THAT THE CLAIM OF CANCELLATION OF DEAL IS NOT CORRECT AND THE RETU RN OF MONEY IS IN DOUBT. THIS FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTABLE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF RET RACTION BUT IT IS CORRECTION OF EARLIER STATEMENT AFTER THE LAND DEAL WAS CANCEL LED. IN THE CASE OF I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 7 MANSI BUILDERS (SUPRA), THERE WAS A MOU REGARDING S ALE OF PROPERTY ON 27.05.2004 AND AN ADVANCE OF RS.21 LACS WAS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ADVANCE WE REFUNDED AND THE LAND DEAL DID NOT TAKE PLACE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRI BUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PER MOU DATED 27.05.20 04 WAS RETURNED BACK AND THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED WI TH THE TRANSFERER I.E. THE ASSESSEE, IN DEED THERE WAS NO INSTANCE OF ACTU AL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE AGR EEMENT WAS THERE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AND ADVANCE WAS ALSO RECEIVED AND BECAU SE OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECO RDED U/S 132(4) BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND THE A MOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE WAS REFUNDED BY CHEQUE AND NO POSSESSION WA S GIVEN OF THE LAND AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWINGS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANSI BUILDERS (SUPRA), WE DECLINE T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD I.T.A.NO.1064 /AHD/2009 8 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12/6 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13/6. OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 15/6 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.15/6 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15/6/12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .