Shri Shravankumar Gisulal Jain, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

ITA 1658/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3872 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G C DAXINI
• Keywords: Salary income; Earning of tax free income; Set aside; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 14A; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1658/AHD/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN 76, ROYAL ACRE B/H. BILLABONG INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL VADSAR ROAD, VADODARA / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(5) VADODARA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABMPJ 2945 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKIT CHOKSHI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.C. DAXINI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 02/03/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/03/2020 / O R D E R PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, VADODARA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 17/05/2018 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.10 ,40,977/- MADE BY THE ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/07/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.N IL. THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICE AND SEEKING REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND INTEREST THEREOF RS. 10,47,877/- AND THUS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELAT ES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.10,47,877/- U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD.AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE REITER ATED SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BY HIM BEFORE CIT(A) AND H AD ALSO RELIED UPON ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ' UNDISPUTEDLY INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED F OR EARNING PROFIT FROM THE FIRMS. THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH OF IT AT IN THE CASE OF V ISHNU ANAND MAHAJAN VS ACIT (2012) 137 ITD 189 (AHD)(SB) HAS HELD THAT SHARE INCOME OF THE PAR TNER FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S. 10 (2A) AND IN SUCH CASES, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WOULD APPLY TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE INC URRED ON EARNING SUCH INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, RELYING UPON THE BINDING DECISION OF H ON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH OF I TAT, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM IN TEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. IN VI EW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH BEING THE LATEST ONE HAS TO BE CONSID ERED INSTEAD OF DECISIONS RELIED BY THE LD. AR. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE AO IS CONFIRMED AND BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED.' THEREFORE YOUR APPELLANT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TH E HON'BLE ITA R ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS 'ON THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT , THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 0,40,877/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961' 1. FACTS IN BRIEF 1.1. YOUR APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND REGULARLY ASSES SED TO TAX AT VADODARA. FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13, YOUR APPELLANT HAD FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2012 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 85,299/- AND CLAIM ED REFUND OF RS. 33,000/- 1.2. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF INCOME IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AT PAGE NO. 06 TO 08. 1.3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD . A.O. CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 10,40,877/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - 1.4. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE APPELLANT SUBMI TTED TO THE LD. A.O. THE DETAILS OF INTEREST EXPENSES LIKE LEDGERS OF PARTIES FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOANS WERE TAKEN, COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS OF PARTIES ETC. 1.5. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE LD. A.O. THAT T HE INTEREST EXPENSES PAID WERE TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN FOR INVESTMENT TOWARD S CAPITAL IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS NAMELY SANDEEP ENTERPRISE, GAJANAND ENTERPRIS E AND VALLABH ENTERPRISE. COPIES OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WERE DULY FURNISHED TO THE LD. A.O. AND FILED THE R EVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME CONSIDERING INTEREST RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND ALSO CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. COPY OF REVISED STATE MENT OF INCOME IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AT PAGE NO. 09 TO 11 1.6. HOWEVER THE LD. A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME, DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 14A AS THE IN TEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS O R PROFESSION ARE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE D EDUCTION 1.7. THEREFORE YOUR APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-5, VADODARA AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O, WHO CONFIRMED THA T THE UNDISPUTEDLY INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,40,877/- WAS INCURRED FOR EAR NING PROFIT FROM FIRMS AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF THE SB OF AHMEDABA D IT AT IN THE CASE OF VISHNU ANAND MAHAJAN VS ACIT DISALLOWED THE SAME U/ S. 14AOF THE ACT 1.8. THEREFORE YOUR APPELLANT PREFERRED THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND MENTIONED ABOVE 2. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE INTERES T EXPENSES INCURRED ON LOANS TAKEN FOR INVESTING IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AS CAPITAL OF TH E APPELLANT. 2.2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED THE INTERE ST EXPENSE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SB OF AHMEDABAD IT AT IN THE CASE OF VISHNU ANAND MAHAJAN VS ACIT 2.3. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE FACTS OF THE DECISION APPLIED BY THE LD. C1T(A) AND FACTS OF THE CASE OF YOUR APPELL ANT ARE DIFFERENT ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - 2.4. IN THE CASE FOLLOWED BY THE LTI. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED THE EXEMPT INCOME WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. 2.5. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SB OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IS APPLIED TO THE CASE OF YOUR A PPELLANT, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AS THE HON'BLE SP ECIAL BENCH HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DISALLOWING ONLY 76% OF EXP ENSES CLAIMED PROPORTIONATE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AND ALLOWED THE 24% OF THE EXPENSES PROPORTIONATE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. WHILE IN THE P RESENT CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT, EVEN IF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH IS APPLIED NO DEDUCTION WOULD BE MADE AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY EXPENSE PROPORTIONATE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME WILL COME TO NIL ONLY. 2.6. FURTHER YOUR APPELLANT IS SUBMITTING HER EWITH THE GIST OF DECISION OF VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WHERE IT IS HELD BY THE HONOUR ABLE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE EXEMPT INCOME 1. PR. CIT VS. GVK PROJECTS AND TECHNICAL SERVICE S LTD. [2019] 106 TAXMANN.COM 181 (SC) 2. CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 116/223 TAXMAN 761(DELHI) 3. CIT V. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. [2014] 45 TAX MANN.COM 116/223 TAXMAN 130 (GUJ) 4. PR. CIT VS. MACDONALD'S INDIA PVT. LTD. [2019] 101 TAXMANN.COM 86 (DELHI) 5. PCIT VS KESHAV POWER LTD. (2019) 112 TAXMANN.C OM 324 (SC) 6. CIT VS. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. [2015] 229 TAXMAN 143 (DELHI) 2.7. IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS GVK PROJECTS AN D TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD. (2019) 106 TAXMANN.COM 181 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WHERE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE RULING IN CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT [20 15] 61 TAXMANN.COM 118/378 ITR 33 (DELHI); HAD HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXE MPT INCOME DISALLOWANCE WAS IMPERMISSIBLE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE DELHI TRI BUNAL ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - 2.8. IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT [20 15] 61 TAXMANN.COM 116/223 TAXMAN 761 (DELHI), IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY WHERE NO E XEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R. 2.9. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. [20 14] 45 TAXMANN.COM 116 AND 372 ITR 97, (GUJ), THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 204 HELD THAT SECTIO N 14A(1) PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF ANY INCOME FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. IT WAS ON THIS BAS IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT DISALLWOANCE UNDER SECTION 14A COULD NOT BE MADE. 2.10. IN PR.CIT VS. MACDONALD'S INDIA PVT. LTD. [ 2019] 101 TAXMANN.COM 86 (DELHI), THE A.O. NOTICED INVESTMENTS IN ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AND INVOKED SECTION 14A. ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMP T INCOME DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S 14A. 2.11. YOUR APPELLANT IS SUBMITTING HEREWITH THE COPIES OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME AL ONG WITH STATEMENT OF INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SHARE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS FOR THE ASST . YEAR 2012-13. YOUR APPELLANT IS SUBMITTING HEREWITH THE COPIES OF THE SAME AT PAGE NO. 12 TO 21. 2.12. THEREFORE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-1 2 RELEVANT TO ASST YEAR 2012-13, YOUR APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE FIRMS AND THEREFORE NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME AT ALL 2.13. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE SUBMISSION AND GIST OF DECISIONS REPORTED, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THE HON'BLE MEMBER TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF YOUR APPE LLANT AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. A.O. ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BO TH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER FROM THE FIRM AND, THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , NO DISALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.)LT D. REPORTED IN (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 116/223 TAXMAN 761(DELHI). ON THE CONTRARY, LD.DR RELIED UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5/2014 DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY-2014 AND DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF LALLY MOTO RS INDIA (P.)LTD. VS. PR.CIT PASSED IN ITA NO.218(ASR)/2017 FOR AY 2012-1 3, DATED 12/04/2018. 9.1. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE AND ALSO HAVING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL PROPOSITI ON AS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF LD.AR AND THAT OF LD.DR, WE FIND THAT VARIOUS COURTS AS WELL AS TRIBUNALS HAVE TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT WHEN ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF AN Y INCOME FROM THE PAYMENT OF TAX, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISA LLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT, WE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. CIT (2015) REPORTED IN (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 116 / 223 TAXMAN 761 (DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ENVISAGES THAT THE RE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CL AIM FOR EXEMPTION OF ANY INCOME FROM PAYMENT OF TAX, THEREFORE WHILE REL YING UPON THE DECISION(S) IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT( SUPRA) AND CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD.(SUPRA), WE ARE ALSO OF TH E VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD.AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02 - 03 - 2020 AT AHMEDABAD SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH) ( SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/ 03 /2020 &.., .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1658AHD/2018 SHRI SHRAVANKUMAR GISULAL JAIN VS. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 9 - !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2.3.20 (DICTATION-PAD 11- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..2.3.20 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.3.3.20 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 3.3.20 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER