M/s.Evolving Systems Network India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 216/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8923 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S EVOLVING SYSTEMS NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD., GURUDAS HERITAGE, 3 RD FLOOR, 59/2, 100 RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU. PAN AABCE 2761 N. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PADAM CHAND KHINCHA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.H SUNDAR RAO, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2018 O R D E R PER SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 9/12/2016 OF ITO, WARD-2(1)(1) BENGALURU, IN RESPE CT OF AN ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF PROVIDING CONTRACT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SWD SERVICE S) AND PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES (ITES) TO I TS HOLDING COMPANY EVOLVING SYSTEMS USA AS A CAPTIVE SERVICE PROVIDER. THE TRANSACTION OF RENDERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO HOLDING COMPANY WAS A IT(TP)A NO.216/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 2 TRANSACTION WITH AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) AND WAS THEREFORE AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.92 OF THE ACT, INCOME FROM INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS TO BE COM PUTED HAVING REGARD TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE THAT THE TRANSACTION NET MARGIN MET HOD (TNMM) WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD (MAM) FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP AND THAT THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPAR ISON OF THE ASSESSEES PROFIT WITH THAT OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES WAS OPERAT ING PROFIT/TOTAL COST (OP/TC). THE OP/TC OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 17%. THE T RANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) TO WHOM THE DETERMINATION OF ALP WAS REFERRED BY THE AO, SELECTED A FINAL SET OF 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES WAS CHOSEN BY THE TPO AS COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE ARITHMETIC MEAN O F PROFIT MARGIN OF THESE COMPANIES AFTER AND BEFORE ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT WAS AS FOLLOWS: SL. NO . NAME OF THE COMPANY MARK-UP ON TOTAL COSTS (WCUNADJ) (IN %) 1 DATAMATICS GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. 14.57 2 GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPN. LTD. 30.09 3 ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD. 17.24 4 INFOSYS LTD. 43.10 5 LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. 25.47 6 MINDTREE LTD. 15.01 7 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 27.20 8 RS SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD. 15.34 9 SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 12.15 10 SPRY RESOURCES INDIA PVT. LTD. 26.18 AVERAGE MARK-UP 22.63 3. BASED ON THE ABOVE AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF PR OFIT MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THE TPO COMPUTED THE ALP OF T HE INTERNATIONAL IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 3 TRANSACTION OF RENDERING OF SWD SERVICES BY THE ASS ESSEE TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY THE TPO AND ADJUSTMENT MADE: ARMS LENGTH MEAN MARK-UP 22.63% LESS: WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT -4.93% ADJUSTED MEAN MARK-UP OF THE COMPARABLES 27.56% OPERATING COST RS13,26,59,53 9 ARMS LENGTH PRICE 127.56% OF OPERATING COST RS16,92,18,17 5 PRICE RECEIVED RS15,52,11,66 3 SHORTFALL BEING ADJUSTMENT U/S. 92CA RS1,40,06,512 4. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALP DETERMINED BY THE TPO VIZ., RS.1,40,06,512/- WA S ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME BY THE AO IN HIS DRAT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTFALL BEING ADJUSTMENT U/S.92CA OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ASSES SMENT ORDER BY THE AO BEFORE THE DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE DRP IN ITS DIRECTIONS HELD THAT ICRA TECHNO ANALYTICS LTD. AND DATAMATICS GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WERE LIABL E TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES AS THEY AGREE D WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TWO COMPANIES ARE NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPA RABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, (II) SO ALSO THE DRP HELD THAT THE FOLLOW ING FOUR COMPANIES ARE LIABLE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPA NIES VIZ., GENEYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED, INFOSYS LTD., SA SKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., AND SPRY RESOURCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. (III) THE IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 4 DRP HOWEVER FELT THAT IF 6 COMPANIES ARE EXCLUDED T HE SET OF COMPARABLES WOULD NOT BE BROAD AND THEREFORE DECIDED TO RETAIN ALL THE 10 COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. (III) THE DRP HOWEVER DIRECTED TPO TO RECOMPUTE THE MARGINS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLES AFT ER TREATING FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS AS OPERATING INCOME OR LOSS A S THE CASE MAY BE. 6. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, TH E AO PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE TP ADJUSTMENT AS SUGGE STED BY THE TPO WAS INCORPORATED BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDI TION MADE IN THE FAIR ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERA L GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON SEVERAL COUNTS. HOWEVE R AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENT S TO EXCLUSION OF 4 COMPARABLES OUT OF THE 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES VIZ. , (A) GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPN.LTD., (B) INFOSYS LTD., (C ) LA RSEN AND TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., AND ( D) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED B EFORE US THAT THE COMPARABILITY OF THE 3 COMPANIES OUT OF THE AFORESA ID 4 COMPANIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE LIST OF COMP ARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO VIZ., INFOSYS LTD., LARSEN & TOUB RO INFOTECH LTD. AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD., WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ITA T DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) L TD. VS. ACIT (2018) 89 TAXMANN.COM 440 (DELHI-TRIB.) FOR THE SAME AY 2012- 13. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE AS SESSEE IS SAME AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD., IS IDENTICAL IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID COMPANY W AS ALSO INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SWD SERVICES TO ITS AE AND THE TPO HAD CH OSEN 16 COMPARABLE COMPANIES OUT OF WHICH 6 COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TP O IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARABILITY WERE THE SAME. HIS SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD., (SU PRA) WOULD BE EQUALLY IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 5 APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO . THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP IN ITS DIRECTIONS HAS MERELY ACCEPTED WITH THE REASONING OF THE TPO AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF EXC LUSION OF THESE COMPANIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH BY THE DRP. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN TH E CASE OF AGILIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD., (SUPRA), T HIS TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE COMPARABILITY OF THE 3 COMPANIES WHICH THE ASSE SSEE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHOSEN BY THE TPO. THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AGILIS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD., IS IDEN TICAL IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID COMPANY WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SWD SER VICES TO ITS AE AND THE TPO HAD CHOSEN SOME COMPARABLE COMPANIES WHICH WERE ALSO CHOSEN BY THE TPO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPARABILITY. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THE TRIBU NAL HELD ON THE COMPARABILITY OF THE 3 COMPANIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE AS FOLLOWS: (A) INFOSYS LTD., WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COM PARABLE COMPANIES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIOIN OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES (2013) 36 TAXMANN.COM 289 (DELHI). TH E DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4.5 TO 4.7 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THAT INFOS YS LTD. IS A GIANT RISK TAKING COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND ALSO OWNS INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND THEREFORE NOT COMPARABLE WITH A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE. (B) LARSEN & TOURBRO INFOTECH LTD., WAS EXCLUDED F ROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY RELYING ON THE IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 6 DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAXO INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2016) 67 TAXMANN.COM 155 ( DEL- TRI). THE DISCUSSION IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4. 8 TO 4.10 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD TH AT L & T INFOTECH LTD., WAS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWD SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS DIS MISSED BY THE HONBLE DELHBI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.682/2016 . ( C) PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD., WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COMPAN Y WAS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION ON SWD SERVICES WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE TRIBUNAL IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION REFERRED TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE O F CASH EDGE INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ITA NO.64/DEL/2015 ORDER DATED 23.9.2015 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAXO INDIA PVT.LTD. (SUPR A). THE FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGR APHS 4.14 TO 4.16 OF ITS ORDER. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE HOLD THAT THE AFORESAID 3 COMPANIES BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LI ST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE ARITHM ETIC MEAN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARISON WITH THE PROFIT MARGINS. 10. THE LEARNED AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT GENE SYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD., SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THIS COMPAN Y IS ENGAGED IN IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 7 PROVIDING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SERVICES COMPRIS ING OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, REMOTE SENSING, CARTOGRAPHY, DATA C ONVERSION, STATE OF THE ART TERRESTRIAL AND 3D GEOCONTENT INCLUDING LOCATION BASED AND OTHER COMPUTER BASED RELATED SERVICES. PAGE-38 OF THE AN NUAL REPORT 2012 CONTAINING THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TPO. ATTENTION OF THE TPO WAS INVITED TO THE DIRECTORS R EPORT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AT PAGE II OF THE ANNUAL REPORT 2012, WHEREIN THE D IRECTORS HAVE INFORMED THE SHAREHOLDERS THAT THE COMPANY CONTINUED IN ITS JOURNEY TO BE INNOVATORS AND LEADERS IN THE FIELDS OF LOCATION BA SED SERVICES RELATED GEO PLATFORMS AND ADVANCED SURVEY TECHNIQUES. THERE IS NO SEGMENTAL REPORTING BECAUSE IT IS STATED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT THIS COMPANY IS ONLY IN ONE SEGMENT VIZ., GIS BASED SERVICES AND THEREFO RE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SEGMENTAL REPORTING. IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THIS COMPANY OWNS SUBSTANTIAL INTANGIBLES EQUIVALENT TO 10.42% OF ITS TOTAL TURNOVER. 11. THE TPO HOWEVER HAS REGARDED THIS COMPAN Y AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY BY OBSERVING THAT THIS COMPANY DEVELOPS SOF TWARE FOR MAPPING AND GEOSPATIAL SERVICES AND OPERATES A FEW DEVELOPM ENT CENTRES IN INDIA. THE COMPANY IS PREDOMINANTLY INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPM ENT SERVICES. THE INTANGIBLES IN THE POSSESSION F THE COMPANY ARE ONL Y THE GIS DATABASE WHICH IS ONLY DEPRECIATION. IT DOES NOT ADD SIGNIF ICANT VALUE TO THE COMPANY. 12. THE DRP UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO. THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP HAS COMPLETELY PROC EEDED ON WRONG FACTS WHICH DOES NOT EITHER EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TPO OR THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REITERATED SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE TPO AND DRP. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DRP/TPO. IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 8 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TPO BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS COMPANY RENDERS MAPPING AND GEOS PATIAL SERVICES. IN RENDERING SUCH SERVICES IT DEVELOPS SOFTWARE. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOP MENT. THE BUSINESS PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT DO ES NOT SHOW THAT THIS COMPANY IS INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. THE ONLY LINE OF BUSINESS THAT THIS COMPANY CARRIES ON IS RENDERING GIS BASED SERVICES AND THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT WHICH SPECIFIES THAT S INCE THE COMPANY CARRIES ON ONLY ONE LINE OF BUSINESS VIZ., GIS BASE D SERVICES THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE ANY SEGMENTAL RESULTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE TPO TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS COMPANY IS PREDOMINANTLY INTO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT TH IS COMPANY IS NOT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUSINESS. THE TPO HA S OVERLOOKED THIS ASPECT AND PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT. RULE 10B(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT F OR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 10B, THE COMPARABILITY OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION WITH AN UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION SHALL BE JUDGED WITH REFERENCE TO THE F OLLOWING, NAMELY: ( A ) THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED IN EITHER TRANSACTION; ( B ) THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ASSETS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED AND THE RISKS ASSUMED, BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS; 14. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD., CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS A IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 9 COMPARABLE COMPANY AND THE SAID COMPANY SHOULD BE E XCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. WE HOLD ACCORD INGLY. 15. THE TPO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES, THE 4 COMPANIES MENTIONED ABOVE AND COMP UTE THE AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE REMAINING COMPARABLE COMPANI ES AND ALLOW THE +/- 5% IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 16. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE NOT PRESSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST DECEMBER, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (N.V VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDEN T BANGALORE DATED : 21/12/2018 VMS COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. IT(TP)A NO.216/B/17 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR. P.S... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT.. 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..