ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI V. BIJESH THAKKER, MUMBAI

ITA 512/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 51219914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (A.M) ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) THE DCIT 11(2), ROOM NO.479, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 20. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI BIJESH THAKKAR, THAKKER & THAKKER, 20 TH FLOOR, NIRMAL, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C.MAURYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH DATE OF HEARING : 26/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/1 2/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER DT.30.11.2009 OF CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI RELATING TO AY 01-02. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO OF RS. 50,43,127/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION EXPENSES WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE CAPITAL IN NATUR E. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND CARRIES ON PRO FESSION AS A SOLICITOR IN THE FIRM NAME OF M/S. THAKKER & THAKKER AS A SOLE P ROPRIETOR THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE FIELD RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2001-02 ON 31 ST OCT. 2001 DECLARING ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 2 TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,98,79,460/-. THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 11,00,77,560/-. THE SAID ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS RE- OPENED ON 14.02.2008 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX DATED 14.02.2008 ON GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXT ENSIVE RENOVATION EXPENSES AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENSES I NSTEAD OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE READING TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.5 0,43,127/- . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,43 ,127/- ON THE GROUND THAT RENOVATION EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE. 3. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE W AS A LEADING SOLICITOR PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO FOREIGN COMPANIES INCLUDING MULTINATIONALS CORPORATIONS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MAJOR PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. THE ASSESSEE HAS OVERSEAS OFFICE IN USA AND UK. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN 5600 SQ. FT. OFFICE PREMISES ON RENTAL BASIS FROM M/S. KFA BUSINESS SERVICE CENTRE- A DIVISION OF KFA COR PORATION LIMITED AT NIRMAL, 20 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 VIDE BUSINE SS SERVICE CENTRE AGREEMENT DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2000 ON A MONTHLY RENTAL OF RS. 3,67,500/-. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT RENOVATION WORK AND FURNITURE AND FIXTU RES FOR THE SAID OFFICE PREMISES. RENOVATION EXPENSES INCLUDED CIVIL WORK LIKES TILING, PLASTER, POP, FIXING OF MARBLES, REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WINDOWS FRAMES, REPLACING OF EXISTING HARDWARE WHEREVER REQUIRED. (COPY OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE AT PAGE 58 & 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE ASSESSEE MAD E NEW FURNITURE WHICH INCLUDES MAKING OF NEW CABINS, TABLES, CHAIRS, WALL CABINETS ETC. AND THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITALIZED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 52 ,03,465/-. 5. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE RENOVATIONS WORKS WHICH I NCLUDED PLASTERING, TILING AND ELECTRIFICATION WORKS HAD BEEN CARRIED O UT IN THE RENTED PREMISES AND WHICH WAS NOT REMOVABLE AND HENCE BELONGS TO TH E OWNER AS PER THE CLAUSE 7(E) OF THE AGREEMENT. AS PER CLAUSE 7(E) T HE ASSESSE WAS NOT ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 3 ENTITLED TO REMOVE ANY FIXED ITEMS LIKE POP, TILES, PARTITIONS AT THE TIME OF VACATING THE OFFICE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT UNDER CLAUSE 7(E) OF THE AGREEMENT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: NOT TO CARRY OUT ANY ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS , IMPR OVEMENTS, REPAIRS IN THE CENTRE WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE COMPANY IN WRITING, WHICH CONSENT SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD, PROVIDE D THAT THE CLIENT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO BRING INTO THE CENTRE LOOSE FURNITURE AND ARTICLES AND THINGS INCLUDING AIR CONDITIONERS, SHELVES SCRE ENS, RACKS WATER GAS, ELECTRICITY AND SANITARY INSTALLATIONS AND FIT TINGS , LIGHTS AND FANS. ON EXPIRY OF THE AGREEMENT , THE CLIENT SHALL BE AL LOWED TO REMOVE UNHINDERED ALL LOOSE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENTS. HOWE VER, THEY SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO REMOVE ANY FIXED ITEMS SUCH AS FALSE CEILINGS, PARTITIONS ETC. AT THE TIME OF VACATION. THE CLIENT SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE CAUSED TO THE CENTRE WHILE REMO VING THE ABOVE MENTIONED LOOSE OR REMOVABLE FIXTURES, FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT SINCE THE OFFICE PREMISE S DOES NOT BELONGS TO HIM AND ADVANTAGE OF WORK CARRIED CAN BE SHARE FOR A L IMITED PERIOD. RENOVATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT OF REVEN UE IN NATURE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RENOV ATION EXPENSES IS COVERED BY SECTION 30(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE TEXT OF THE PRO VISION IS EXTRACTED BELOW: SEC.30(A)(I) IN RESPECT OF RENT, RATES, TAXES, REPAIRS AND INSU RANCE FOR PREMISES USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSIO N, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED. (A). WHERE THE PREMISES ARE OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESS EE. (I) AS A TENANT, THE RENT PAID FOR SUCH PREMISES; A ND FURTHER IF HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO BEAR THE COST OF REPAIRS TO THE PREMI SES, THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH REPAIRS; (II) OTHERWISE THAN AS A TENANT, THE AMOUNT PAID BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT REPAIRS TO THE PREMISES; EXPLANATION: FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREB Y DECLARED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF THE COST OF REPAIRS REFER RED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) AND THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT REPAI RS REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 4 THE EXPLANATION REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS INSERTED BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SUPREME COURT), WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW T EST OF ENDURING BENEFIT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE EXPENDITURE, EVEN IF INCU RRED FOR OBTAINING ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT, MAY NONE THE LESS BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT MAY BREAK DOWN. IT IS NOT EVERY ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE ACQUIRED BY AN A SSESSEE THAT BRINGS THE CASE WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN T HIS TEST. WHAT IS MATERIAL TO CONSIDER IS THE NATURE OF THE ADVANTAGE IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE AND IT IS ONLY WHERE THE ADVANTAGE IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE DISALLOWABLE ON AN APPLICATION OF THIS TEST. IT THE ADVANTAGE CONSISTS MERELY IN FACILITATING THE ASSES SEES TRADING OPERATIONS OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT O F THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY OR MORE PROFITABLY WHILE LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT, EVEN THROUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY END URE FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE. THE TEST OF ENDURING BENEFIT IS THEREFORE NOT CERTAIN OR CONCLUSIVE TEST AND IT CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY AND MECHANICALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF A GIVEN CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT NONE OF THE EXPENSES I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE ASSESSEE ANY ENDURING BENEFIT. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THESE MAY PROVIDE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS TENANCY, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSEE BE NEFIT OF A FIXED CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NILA PRODUCTS V. C IT,148 ITR 99 STATING THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTIONS MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PROPER UTILIZATION OF PREMISES TAKEN ON LEASE CANNOT BE SA ID TO BRING INTO BEING ANY ASSET OF AN ENDURING CHARACTER OR ANY BENEFIT OF AN ENDURING CHARACTER. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THAT C ASE THAT THE DIVIDING WALL OR PLASTER TO THE WALL OR CONSTRUCTION OF A GATE CA N BY NO STRETCH IMAGINATION TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF LESSEE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT S VIEW IN ASSAM ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 5 BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. VS. 27 ITR 34 THAT THE WORD ENDURING MEANS ENDURING IN WAY THAT FIXED CAPITAL ENDURES AND IT D OES NOT DENOTE A BENEFIT THAT ENDURES IN THE SENSE THAT FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS IT RELIEVES THE ASSESSES OF A REVENUE PAYMENT. THE OTHER CASE LAW C ITED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTALMENT SUPPLY P. LTD. , 149 ITR 52 (DEL.), WHIC H HELD ON THE FACTS IN THE CASE THAT THE ADVANTAGE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FOR ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET. HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET INCLUDED LEASEHOLD RIGHT IN THE PREMISES BUT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED CONSTITUTED R EVENUE EXPENDITURE AS AN OLD ASSET HAD BEEN REMODELED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPE DIENCY. IT DOES NOT ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE BUILDINGS DO NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT, IN THE CASE OF MADRAS AUTO SERVICE P. LTD. 233 ITR 468 WAS ALSO RE LIED UPON WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE CREATED BY SPENDING THE SAID AM OUNTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSEE GOT THE BUSINESS ADVANTAG E OF USING MODERN PREMISES AT LOW RENT SAVING CONSIDERABLE REVENUE EX PENDITURE FOR NEXT 39 YEARS, THE BOTH TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT RIGHTLY CAM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE LOOKED UPON AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. 6. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSES SEE. HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: 3.3 FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DECISIO NS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT CITED BY T1W APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPENDED MONIES ON IMPROVING THE PREMISES TAKEN ON RENT BY HIM. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT ASSUME THE CHA RACTER OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF FUR NITURE AND FIXTURES, A LARGE SUM HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED BY THE APPELLANT HIM SELF. FURTHER THAT AN AMOUNT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. FOR DISALLOWANCE O F I.E. RS.15,38,287/- IS THAT WHICH HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED B Y APPELLANT AND WAS NOT CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE DECISIO NS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT SUPRA AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOW N BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT SUPRA SQUARELY APPLY. IT IS HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE RENOVATI ON ARE REVENUE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A .O. IN TREATING THEM AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS DELETED. ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 6 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEAR NED D.R. AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED D.R. REITERA TED STAND OF THE AO AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT I N THE CASE OF ACIT VS. E.I.DUPONT INDIA LTD. 107 ITD 63 (DEL). THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS PU T FORTH BEFORE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 30(A)(I) OF THE ACT, FROM THE CONTRAST BETWE EN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 30(A)(I) ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO A TENANT IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS AS AGAINST THOSE IN SECTION 30(A)(II) ALLOWING TO A PERSON NOT A TEN ANT THE COST OF CURRENT REPAIRS IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO INFER THAT, AS REPAI RS. A TENANT HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO BEAR THE COST OF REPAIRS, IT IS REASO NABLE THAT WHATEVER HE SPENDS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE DEDUCTED WHETHER T HE REPAIRS EFFECTED BY HIM ARE CURRENT REPAIRS OR OTHERWISE. AN EXPENDIT URE INCURRED BY A TENANT TOWARDS REPAIRS, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE IN THE NAT URE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF ALLOWABLE EX PENDITURE UNDER SECTION 30(A)(I) IF IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE COMMERCIAL AC TIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION ADDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004, SUCH EXPENDITURE, IF IT IS OF CAPITAL NATURE, WILL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LESSOR IN CL AUSE7 (E) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE REPAIRS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT ONLY BY THE LESSEE SUBJECT TO PERMISSION OF LESSOR. THE EXPENSES CAN THEREFORE B E CONSIDERED AS ALLOWABLE U/S.30(A)(I) OF THE ACT. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW T HAT THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE ALLOWABLE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE ALREADY LISTED ITEMS OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE. PERUSAL OF THE SAME REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE OR CARRIED OUT ANY WORK IN THE FORM OF RE NOVATION OR EXTENSION, IMPROVEMENT OF THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING THAT WAS TAKEN ON LEASE REMAINED INTACT. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WAS ONLY TO CREATE A BET TER WORKING ENVIRONMENT. ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 7 . IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO . LTD. (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIE D UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORT THE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND HAVE TO BE A LLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CAS E OF E.I.DUPONT (I) LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE EN TIRELY DIFFERENT. THE EXPENDITURE IN THAT CASE RELATED TO A SOPHISTICATED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO BRING ABOUT CONNECTIVITY WITH THE VARIOUS OFFICES O F THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA AND ABROAD. THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT MERELY ON WIRES AN D CABLES BUT SOPHISTICATED NETWORK. SUCH ARE NOT THE FACTS IN T HE PRESENT CASE. THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS OF ELECTRICAL WI RING, TILING AND PLASTERING. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS THEREFORE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS REPAIRS. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH DAY OF DEC. 2011. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 30 TH DEC.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RB BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.512/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2001-02) 8 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 27/12/2011 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27/12/2011 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COM ES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER