S Surya Prakash Rao, Berhampur V. ITO, Berhampur

ITA 535/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65193 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: G NAIKS K SARANGIR KAR ARS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 SRI S.SURYA PRAKASH RAO, PROP. M/S.SURYA PRAKASH SILK PALACE, ILLUVARI STREET, BERHAMPUR,GANJAM. PAN: AHWPS 5125 R - - - VER SUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3,BERHAMPUR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI G.NAIK/S.K.SARANGI/R.KAR, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI N.K.NEB, DR / D ATE OF HEARING: 13.12.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.12.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE SOLITARY ISSUE OF CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN CLOTH BUSINESS. RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON 31.03.2008 SHOWING IN COME OF 4,65,4 30. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ON 14.07.2008. I N THIS CASE A SURVEY U/S. 133A(1) OF THE I . T . ACT WAS CONDUCTED DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) ON 02.12.2009 MAKING THE ADDITIONS UND ER FOLLOWING HEADS: I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 2 1. EXCESS OF STOCK FOUND ON THE DAY OF SURVEY 49,31,241 2. UNEXPLAINED CASH 45,000 3. UNACCOUNTED SALES 6,80,000 4. BOGUS CREDITORS 3,91,869 5. UN EXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN 8,40,919 6. UNEXPLAINED INTRODUCTION OF CASH 40,000 7. ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES. 60,000 69,89,029 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S. 271( 1)(C) WAS INITIATED IN ASSESSEES CASE CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONS MADE AS THE INCOME OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. H ENCE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. U /S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE IT ACT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CAS E FOR HEARING ON 30.12.2009. IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT, WE HAVE PREFERRED TO APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND REQUIRED NOT TO INITIATE ANY PROCEEDINGS . CONS IDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS. IN THE FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT ( A ) VIDE HIS ORDER IN ITA NO. 0086/2009 - 10 DT. 28.09.2010, HAS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , EXCEPT GIVING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS OF STOCK FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO 24,81,854 AS AGAINST 49,31,241 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . FURTHER ON SECOND APPEAL, ITAT VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 426/CTK/2010 DT . 14.03.2011, HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF (I) EXCESS STOCK FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND (II) UN ACCOUNTED SALES, OUT OF THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THESE TWO A MOUNTS AT 26,000 AND 4,00,000 RESPECTIV ELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) HELD THAT AS THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN PARTLY DELETED BY TH E TRIBUNAL, THE REMAINING ADDITIONS AS I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 3 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER U/S.143(3) HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WHICH WERE FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER THAT SECTION. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO ON THE BASIS OF THE PENALTY ORDER SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM, CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN ITS OWN WAY BY TRY ING TO ADJUDICATE ON THE QUANTUM WHICH HAS BEEN AGREED (AS NOT APPEALED AGAINST) TO HAVE B EEN CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO IDENTIFY AND JUSTIFY HIMSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT A SUM OF 18,03,788 REMAINED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER COULD BE FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY THERE UPON. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE WRONGL Y APPROACHED THE ISSUE FOR CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY TAKING SIDE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD PROPOSED TO BRING TO TAX THE INCOMES WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 23.2. 2007 WHEN HE WAS PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR INDICATING THESE VERY ITEMS RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2007. THEREFORE, AT NO POINT OF TIME THE WILLFUL ATTEMPT OF CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 4 SOUGHT TO BE VIS ITED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH THEY HAVE HELD AS AN AGREED AMOUNT TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE SURVEY OPERATION WHEN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER CLEARLY INDICATES THAT ALL THESE ITEMS WERE AVAILABLE FOR TAXATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT WHEN WERE FOR THE FULL FINANCIAL YEAR FOR THE ACCOUNTING WAS TO END. FOR THIS PROPOSITION , HE HAS SUBMITTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DULY AUDITED WHICH INDICATES THE AMOUNTS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF CASH AND STOCK WERE DECLARED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE TAXABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN THE SHAPE OF BANK BALANCES AND STOCK IN TRADE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN PART RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF UNEXPLAINED SALES WHICH WERE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THEREFORE COULD NOT BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS QUANTUM RELIEF GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ONLY. ON PROPOSITION FOR TAXING INCOMES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS HELD OR IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES ARE THE CREDITS WHICH ARE BOGUS CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMEN T IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSITION FOR AGREEING TO TAX ON THE AMOUNT FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS NOT A PROPOSITION FOR ACCEPTING CONCEALMENT THEREOF. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THE CASE LAWS CITED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEN HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE HIS OWN ASSUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT IN THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS TOTALING 18,03,788. FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN NEW SORTHIA ENGINEERING CO. V. CIT [283 ITR 642 (GUJ.)], WHEN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC FINDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHETHER I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 5 THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED WAS AN ERROR IN LAW. 4. INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONS, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE UNEXPLAINED SALES ADDITIONS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PERISHABLE ITEMS OF CLOTH HANDLED AND SOLD AS SECONDS WHEN THE DISCOUNT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CUSTOMERS COULD NOT BE TAXED IN VIEW OF THE STOCK VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 23.02.2007 . SIMILARLY UNEXPLAINED SALES AND UNEXPLAINED CASH WAS EXPLAINED AS ON 31.3.2007 CO ULD NOT REMAIN EXPLAINED TILL SUCH TIME WHEN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAITED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE DISCREPANCIES IN ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CONCEALMENT AS RECONCILIATION HAS TO BE TAKEN EFFECT OF. CREDITS THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TAXABLE TILL SUCH TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDS A VIEW THAT THIS AMOUNT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE TAXED U/S.41(1). THEREFORE, CONCLUDING HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADDITIONS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED ON FINDING OF FACTS WHICH RATHER LEAN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C). TO CONCLUDE HE SUMMARIZED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS FOLLOWS. I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 6 5. THE LEARNED DR S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) LEAD TO UNDISPUTED FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BROUGHT TO TAX AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH PARTLY, FIT I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 7 FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). HE PRAYED FOR SUSTENANCE OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1). 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW HAVE TRIED TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.2.2007 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT BY WAY OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) FOR THE FINANCIAL STA TEMENT AS ON 31.3.2007. AS CAN BE PERUSED, THE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT WERE THE ITEMS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY TOTALING 69,89,029 WHEN AFTER THE TRIBUNA L S ORDER THE QUANTUM BROUG HT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REGULAR RETURN HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 18,03,788. IN OTHER WORDS , THE COMPUTATION OF QUANTUM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.2.20 07 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD INCORPORATED ALL THE INCOMES IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS ON 31.3.2007. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX , ASSUMED BUT NOT ACCEPTED, TO HAVE BEEN AGREED TO TAX WAS F OR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE THAT THESE ITEMS ARE THE ITEMS TO GENERATE INCOME OR ARE IN THE SHAPE OF INCOME AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IT APPEARS STOCK, CASH ARE ITEMS ON INCOME HAS BEEN GENERATED WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF CREDITORS WAS ESTABLISHED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY ITSELF. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN BY BRINGING ON RECORD THAT THEY ARE ALL GENUINE AND NOT BOGUS INSOFAR AS HE COULD NOT EXPLAINING THE HOLDING OF SUCH ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AMOUNTING TO 18,03,788. W E FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT QUANTUM I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 8 SUSTENANCE OF ADDITIONS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT WHICH INDICAT E HOLDING OF STOCK, CASH, CREDITORS MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX THEREFORE CAN SAFELY BE CONSIDERED WERE PART OF THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED ANY PARTICULAR ITEM WHICH REMAINED CONCEALED TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SURVEY. WE FIND THAT IT WAS NOT THE ENDEAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT TO AGREE TO LEVY OF PENALTY BUT TO AGREE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ABLE TO DECLARE INCOME MORE THAN THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE CO MPUTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, INCOMES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN QUANTUM REQUIRED CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHETHER WERE FIT FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WE DO FIND THAT HAVING TAKEN THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION HE HAS PARTLY CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS HE HAS AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PARTY OF DISCLOSURE ONLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TAXABLE AND THE REFORE, THE REMAINING DISCLOSURE HAS TO BE TAXED AS CONCEALMENT CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY CONSIDERED THE QUANTUM TO BE TAXED WAS FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). ON PERUSAL OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)S ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TRIED TO ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS PARTLY CONSIDERED THE FACT FINDING THAT THESE ITEMS WHICH HE HAS DELIBERATED UPON WERE ON THE BASI S OF PROCEDURAL INABILITY TO EXPLAIN WHICH COULD NOT BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT INSOFAR AS THE QUANTUM HAVE BEEN GENERATED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND NOT CORRELATED TO THE ITEMS APPEARING IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH WERE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 9 RETURN FILED BY IT UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEAR NED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL THESE INCOMES BY WAY OF REGULAR RETURN WHICH WAS ONLY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BEING ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENAL TY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND AS SUCH WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY SO LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C). 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 21.12.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : SRI S.SURYA PRAKASH RAO, PROP. M/S.SURYA PRAKASH SILK PALACE, ILLUVARI STREET, BERHAMPUR,GANJAM. 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3,BER HAMPUR. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 535/CTK/2012 10 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18.12.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRA FT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.12.2012 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.12.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..