M/s. G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1540/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7499 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; International transaction; Services rendered outside India; Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1540/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) M/S. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), (INDIA) PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN NEW DELHI AS G4S SECURITY SERVICES INDIA P. LTD., PANCHVATI, 82-A, SECTOR 18, GURGAON-122001 (HARYANA) GIR / PAN : AAACG1625G I.T.A.NO. 1647/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. M/S. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY G4S SECURITY SERVICES INDIA P.LTD., PANCHVATI, 82-A, SECTOR 18, GURGAON-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI MUKESH BHUTANI, ADV. SHRI VISHAL KALRA, ADV. MS. REENA MALIK RESPONDENT BY :SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 26.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.08.2016 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. ACIT, CI RCLE 2 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 12(1), NEW DELHI DATED 25.01.2011 U/S 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 144C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G INCOME OF RS.29,65,66,497/- ON 12.09.2007. THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, LD. A .O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION WITH ITS AES. LD. A.O. IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92CA OF THE ACT, REFERRED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO THE TPO-I(5) FOR DETER MINATION OF ALP. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF PROVIDING SECURITY SERVICES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE TEST CHECKED BY THE A.O. LD. A.O. MADE CERTAIN ADDI TIONS ON THE CORPORATE ISSUES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. 2.2 LD. TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. S.NO. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION METHOD VALUE (IN RS.) 1 ROYALTY PAYMENT TNMM 5,22,68,810 2 EXPORT OF SERVICE TO AE CPM 16,06,038 3 IMPORT OF SERVICES FROM AES TNMM 10,29,834 4 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO G4S SECURITY 1,48,416 5 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE BY G4S SECURITY 23,02,457 9 ROYALTY PAYMENT MADE 1,51,69,615 3 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 BETWEEN 1-1-2007 AND 31.03.2007. TOTAL 7,25,25,170 2.3 IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TP STUDY, HAD SELECTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ABOVE. FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPLYING TN MM, OPERATING PROFIT / SALES WAS CONSIDERED AS THE PROF IT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SELECTED ITSEL F AS A TESTED PARTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ARRIVED AT OP/SALES MARGIN AT 3.64%. 2.4 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. TPO THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID ROYALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.6,74,38,425/- IN CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. GROUP 4 HOLDINGS A/S. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ROYALTY HAS BEEN PAID IN LIEU OF RIGHT TO USE OF THE TRADE MARK, AND THAT NO OWNERSHIP RIGHT PASSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANY KIND WHATSOEVER. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO ENDURIN G BENEFIT IN THE NATURE OF ENDURING ADVANTAGE AROSE T O THE ASSESSEE. LD. TPO APPLIED CUP AS THE MAM BY USING BENEFIT TEST AND HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT SUBSTANTIATED BY WAY OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AN Y BENEFIT THAT HAS ACCRUED, THE ROYALTY PAID CANNOT B E JUSTIFIED. THE LD. TPO DETERMINED THE ALP AND ROYAL TY AT NIL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. TPO, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 4 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 2.5 LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY LD. A. O. 3. ANOTHER GROUND THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR ADJUDICATION BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS IN RESPECT OF TR EATMENT OF ROYALTY CLAIM AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY THE LD. A.O. LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RO YALTY IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS O F ASSESSEE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY ASSET OF ENDURING NAT URE. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE ISSUE RA ISED IS AGAINST ROYALTY PAYMENT BEING TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY LD. CIT(A). 5.1 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THA T THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN I.T.A. NO. 1943/DEL/2010, I.T.A. NO. 763/DEL/2011 AND I.T.A. N O. 765/DEL/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.07.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. FROM THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE SAID CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 5 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 AGREEMENT AS NOTED ABOVE, THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF T HE TRADE MARK AND KNOWHOW THROUGHOUT VESTED WITH G4F AND ON THE EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO RETURN ALL G4F KNOW HOW OBTAINED BY UNDER THE AGREEMENT. THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY WAS ALSO TO BE ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS ON THE NET SALES OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT NO POINT OF TIME T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE OWNER S OF THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW AND THE TRADE MARK. HENCE , THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ROYALTY IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND IS THEREFORE, RELATABLE UND ER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE THUS, ANSWER THE QUES TION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS ALL THE THREE APPEALS. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HT SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. 7. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL A RE AS UNDER: 1.(A) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH AS PER THE LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 67,438,425/- PERTAINING TO ROYALTY PAYMENT WHILE DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S AT ARM'S LENGTH PRINCIPLE. (B) THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF AFORESAID INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE GENUINE ADJUSTMENTS / EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES 6 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN TP STUDY TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. (C) THE CIT(A) / AD HAD ERRED BOTH ON THE LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS WHILE NOT CONSIDERING ALL THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT USING TNMM METHOD IN THE TP STUDY & WRONGLY APPLIED CUP METHOD BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT SALES / NET MARGIN'S OF APPELLANT COMPANY ARE SUBSTANTIAL HIGHER AS COMPARED WITH THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE ABOVE GROUND ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 8. GROUND NO.1 (A) & 1(C) PERTAIN TO THE DETERMINATION OF ALP IN RESPECT OF THE ROYALTY PAYMENT AS NIL B Y THE LD. TPO BY APPLYING CUP AS MAM. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R . RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EKL APPLIANCES LTD., RE PORTED IN 345 ITR 241 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSER VED AS UNDER: 22. EVEN RULE 10B(1)(A) DOES NOT AUTHORISE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY OR PRUDENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE INCURRED THE SAME OR THAT IN THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE THE EXPENDITURE WAS UNREMUNERATIVE OR THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUED LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BUSINESS, HE COULD HAVE FARED BETTE R HAD HE NOT INCURRED SUCH EXPENDITURE. THESE ARE IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE L 0B. WHETHER OR NOT TO ENTER INTO THE TRANSACTION IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE. THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE CAN NO DOUBT BE EXAMINED BY THE TPO AS PER LAW BUT IN JUDGING THE ALLOWABILITY THEREOF AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DISALLOW THE EN TIRE EXPENDITURE OR A PART THEREOF ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED CONTINUOUS LOSSES. THE 7 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 FINANCIAL HEALTH OF ASSESSEE CAN NEVER BE A CRITERI ON TO JUDGE ALLOWABILITY OF AN EXPENSE; THERE IS CERTAINL Y NO AUTHORITY FOR THAT. WHAT THE TPO HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO PAY ROYALTY/BRAN D FEE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SUFFERING LOSSES CONTINUOU SLY. SO LONG AS THE EXPENDITURE OR PAYMENT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR LAID OUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, IT IS NO CONCERN OF THE TPO T O DISALLOW THE SAME ON ANY EXTRANEOUS REASONING. AS PROVIDED IN THE OECD GUIDELINES, HE IS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AS HE ACTUALL Y FINDS THE SAME AND THEN MAKE SUITABLE ADJUSTMENT BUT A WHOLESALE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE PARTICULARLY ON THE GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN B Y THE TPO IS NOT CONTEMPLATED OR AUTHORIZED. 8.1 LD. A.R. RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS PASSED B Y COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS ELK APPLIANCES LTD. (SUPRA). 8.2 LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO HAS HEL D THAT ROYALTY IS A CLASS OF TRANSACTION ON ITS OWN A ND IT REQUIRES SEPARATE ANALYSIS BY APPLYING CUP METHOD. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE USE OF TRADEMARKS ONL Y AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.12.2007 PLACED AT PAGES 250- 269 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 8.3 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT FROM THE USE O F SUCH TRADEMARKS AND THUS, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AES I N THE NATURE OF ROYALTY, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS 8 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8.4 WE HAVE PERUSED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD. TP O DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS EKL APPLIANCES LTD. (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, SET ASI DE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DETERMINE THE QU ANTUM OF EXPENDITURE FOR ALLOWING THE SAME AS ROYALTY BEING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A ) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS PASS ED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS EKL APPLIANCES LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O.1(A) & 1(C) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUNDS NO.1(B) RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TP STUDY TO DETERMINE THE ALP. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE, WHILE CALCULATING OPERATING EXPENSES FOR COMPUTATIO N OF MARGIN, HAD EXCLUDED CERTAIN EXTRA ORDINARY EXPENSE S PERTAINING TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, EXCESS LEASE R ENT DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT DUE TO CHANGE IN THE METHO D OF ACCOUNTING, EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS DUE TO C HANGE IN MANAGEMENT POLICY, EXCESS DEPRECIATION DUE TO CH ANGE IN THE ACCOUNTING METHOD / POLICY. LD. TPO RECOMPU TED 9 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 ASSESSEES MARGIN AT 0.74% AS COMPARED TO 3.64% CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 LD. A.R. RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS PASSED B Y COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO BUTTRESS HIS ARGUMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PAYMENTS AS ENUMERATED ABOVE, WERE NOT THERE IN THE CASES OF COMPARABLES APPLIED, IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DENY T HE BENEFIT OF SUCH PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. 9.2 LD. D.R. HOWEVER, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9.3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS RELIED UPON BY THE L D. A.R. AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE AS SESSEE WITH ITS AES BY COMPARING THE NET PROFIT (ON TESTED PARTIES BEING ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE), WITH THAT OF COMPARBLES, ONLY THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE CONNEC TED WITH SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATUTO RY PROVISIONS THAT NET PROFIT USED UNDER RULE 10B, C AN BE TAKEN TO MEAN THE COMMERCIAL PROFIT. THE ADJUSTMEN TS ARE THEN REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO LEVEL OUT THE FUNCT IONAL DIFFERENCE. LD. A.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I) QUAL CORE LOGIC LT. VS DCIT 52 SOT 574 (HYD.) II) SCHEFENACKER MOTHERSON LTD. VS ITO 123 TTJ 509 (DEL.) III) SKODA AUTO INDIA (P) LTD. VS ACIT 30 SOT 319 ( PUNE) IV) SONY INDIA (P) LTD. VS DCIT 114 ITD 448 (DEL.) V) E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS (P) LTD. VS ITO 23 SOT 385 (PUNE) 10 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 VI) MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. VS DCIT 109 I TD 101 (DEL.) 9.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD . TPO WAS WRONG IN NOT GRANTING THE BENEFITS OF EXTRA ORD INARY EXPENSES AS THE SAME HAS A MATERIAL IMPACT AS COMPA RED TO THE COMPARABLES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE LD. TPO FOR P URPOSES OF CALCULATION OF MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE BY GRANTIN G ADJUSTMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY EXPENS ES. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD AUG., 2016. SD./- SD./- (N. K. SAINI) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 03.08.2016 2016 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO:- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER 11 I.T.A.NO..1540/DEL/2012 (ITAT, NEW DELHI) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 3/8/16 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 3/8 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 3/8/16 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER