HAIDER ZAKKI SOOMAR, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5401/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6183 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K B L NIGAM
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYAR AGHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 5401/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07 SHRI HAIDER ZAKKI SOOMAR, 9, GULISTAN, M.L. DHANUKAR MARG, MUMBAI-400 026 PAN-AOJPS 3867A THE ITO 5(2)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5427/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07 THE ITO 5(2)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 SHRI HAIDER ZAKKI SOOMAR, 9, GULISTAN, M.L. DHANUKAR MARG, MUMBAI-400 026 PAN-AOJPS 3867A (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.B.L. NIGAM DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI MANOJ MISHRA O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CROSS A PPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 2 4.07.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-V FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 R EGARDING VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CASH AND CHEQUE DEPO SITS IN THE BANK. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS, TH ESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CON SOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 5401/M/09 2 2. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STANDARD CHARTERED BA NK AT NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BANK STAT EMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DING. THERE WERE MANY CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BAN K ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN VAR IOUS DEPOSITS MADE BY HIM IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH IN THIS BANK ACC OUNT ARE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS AND HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS RECEIVING RS 20,000/- PER MONTH FROM HIS GRANDFATHER AND HE USED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PA RTLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE FOLLOWING CASH DEPOSITS AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT 05.04.2005 2,0 0,000 05.04.2005 2,99 ,000 03.09.2005 1 5,000 08.09.2005 3,000 28.09.2005 50,000 01.10.2005 10,000 08.11.2005 2,5 1,000 A.Y. 2006-07 17.01.2006 20 ,000 18.01.2006 20 ,000 25.01.2006 5,000 09.02.2006 7,000 17.03.2006 14 ,500 --------------- TOTAL 8,94,500 ITA NO. 5401/M/09 3 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A). I N THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED THE SAME EXPLANATION WHICH HE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE O N EARLIER OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RS. 4,99,000 /- WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 5.4.2005 OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3, 00,000/- MADE ON 25.3.2005 AND CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 4,00,000/- MAD E ON 2.4.20005. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DEPOSITS TOTALING TO RS . 78,000/- WERE MADE ON 3.9.2005, 8.9.2005, 28.9.2005 AND ON 1.10.2005 O UT OF FOLLOWING CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. DATE AM OUNT 04.06.2005 3,50,000 04.07.2005 1,00,000 06.07.2005 1,00,000 4. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSI T OF RS. 2,51,000/- ON 17.11.2005 WAS MADE OUT OF CASH WITHD RAWAL OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON 9.11. 2005. RS. 1000/- WAS ADDED OUT OF CASH IN HAND. DEPOSITS TOTALING TO RS 45,000/- MADE ON 17.01.2006, 18.01.2006 AND ON 25.01.2006 WERE MADE OUT OF FOLLOWING WITHDRAWALS. DATE AMOUNT 21.11.2005 50,000 18.01.2006 20,000 5. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS . 7,000/- ON 9.2.2006 AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,500/- ON 17.3.2 006 WERE MADE OUT OF FOLLOWING WITHDRAWALS. ITA NO. 5401/M/09 4 DATE AMOUNT 01.03.2006 1,00,000 01.03.2006 2,00,000 02.03.2006 20,000 6. THUS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE ALL THE CASH DEPO SITS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OBSERVI NG AS UNDER. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT . I FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE HEAVY CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND AS WELL AS THERE WERE WITHDRAWAL IN CAS H IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON MANY OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE U SED TO RECEIVE RS 20,000/- FROM HIS GRANDFATHER EVERY MONT H BUT HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT T HAT MONEY WHICH THE APPELLANT WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME ON EARL IER OCCASIONS WAS AGAIN DEPOSITED IN THE SAME BANK ACCO UNT LATER ON. APPELLANT DEPOSITED RS 4,99,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 5.4.2005 BUT IT IS FOUND THAT HE HAS WIT HDRAWN RS 4,00,000/- FROM THE SAME BANK ON 2.4.2005 AND HE H AS ALSO WITHDRAWN RS.ANK ON 2.4.2005 AND HE HAS ALSO WITHD RAWN RS.3,00,000/- ON 29.3.2005. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE T O SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT USED THE MONEY WITHDRAWN ON 25.3 .2005 AND 2.4.2005 SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SOM E UNKNOWN SOURCES. THEREFORE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS 4,9 9,000/- MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 5.4.2005 CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT THERE ARE DEPOSITS OF RS 78,00 0/- BETWEEN 3.9.2005 AND 1.10.2005. THE APPELLANT EXPLA INED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AS UNDER; RE. :RS. 78,000/- THIS CONSISTS OF 4 DEPOSITS BETWEEN 3.9.2005 AND 1.10.2005. IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT THERE IS A CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS. ITA NO. 5401/M/09 5 3,50,000/- ON 4.6.2005. THIS IS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY IN CASH. ON 4.7.2005 THERE IS A CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,00,000/- AND AGAIN ON 6.7.2005 THERE IS ANOTHER CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,00,000/- IT IS OUT OF THESE DRAWINGS OF RS. 5,50,000 THAT 4 SMALL DEPOSITS. TOTALING 78,000/- WERE MADE BETWEEN 3.9.2005 AND 1.10.2005. THE LEARNED OFFICE AGAIN ADDS THEM AS UNEXPLAINED WITHOUT ANY REASON. THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT AFTER GA P OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL. THERE IS LONG GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS MADE AND DEPOSITS MADE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS N OT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN TREATING THESE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT IS UPHELD. DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,51,000/- MADE ON 17.11.2005 IS STA TED TO BE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 2,50,000/- MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON 9.11.2005. THERE IS GAP OF ONLY EIG HT DAYS BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE NOT TO BELIEVE THE EX PLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 45,000/- MADE ON 17.1.2006, 1 8.1.2006 AND ON 25.1.2006 IS STATED TO BE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- MADE ON 21.11.2005 AND CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 20,000/= ON 18.1.2006. THERE IS GAP OF APPROXIMATE LY TWO MONTHS BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE IN THE MONT H OF NOVEMBER AND DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HO WEVER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE NOT TO BELIEVE THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT WITHDRAWAL OF RS.20,000/- MADE ON 18 .1.2006 WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT FOR CASH DEPOS ITS MADE ON THE SAME DATE AND ON 25.1.2006. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS M ADE ON 17.1.2006 IS UPHELD AND REST OF THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT IS UPHELD. THERE IS NOTHING NOT TO BELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,500/- MADE ON 17.3.2006 IS N OT OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL IF RS. 3,00,000/= MADE ON 1.3.2006 . DEPOSIT OF RS. 7,000/- IS A SMALL AMOUNT IS EXPLAIN ABLE DEPOSIT LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HA S MADE LARGE ITA NO. 5401/M/09 6 WITHDRAWALS IN CASH FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON E ARLIER OCCASIONS. THEREFORE THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARE DELETED. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ADDITION OF RS. 98,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS UPHELD AND BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. T HE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT W ITHDRAWALS TO EXPLAIN THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS IN CASH. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FOR SOME DEPOSITS BUT HAS REJECTED THE SAME IN OTHER CASES. AS LONG AS THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT S WITHDRAWN HAS BEEN USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THE CASH WITHDRAWN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SOURCE TO EXPLAIN SUBSEQUENT DEPOSI TS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS ON THE BASIS OF `PEAK CRED IT METHOD. ONLY THOSE DEPOSITS WHICH CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY EARLIER UNCOM MITTED WITHDRAWALS HAVE TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED/UNEXPLAINED INCOME. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS THIS ISSUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AG AINST THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,23,117/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CHEQUES DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. FA CTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE IN APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FOLL OWING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ON VA RIOUS DATES. DATE AMOUNT 05.04.2005 1,148 27.04.2005 1,004 27.05.2005 7,50,000 05.09.2005 10,000 13.09.2005 2,123 17.02.2006 3,00,000 ITA NO. 5401/M/09 7 28.02.2006 3,90,633 17.03.2006 1,68,209 --------------- 16,23,117 --------------- 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPL ANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE SOURCES OF THESE CHEQUES AN D TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 11. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS BANK DEP OSITS ARE AS UNDER: (A) ON 5.4.2005 RS 1,148/- THIS IS A DIVIDEND WARRANT FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA . A XEROX COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP, SHOWING THIS IS ENCLOSED. (B) ON 27.4.2005 RS. 1,004/- THIS IS A REFUND ORDER FROM I.T. DEPARTMENT . A XEROX COPY OF THE REFUND ORDER AND A XEROX COPY OF DEPOSIT SLIP IS ENCLOSED. (C) ON 27.05.2005 RS. 7,50,000/- THESE ARE TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 4,00,000/- AND RS.3,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM H IS MATERIAL GRANDFATHER MR. I.S.LALJEE. XEROX COPIES OF BOTH THE CHEQUES, DEPOSIT SLIP AND AN EXTRACT SHOWING WITHDR AWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. LALJEE IS SUBMITTED. SHRI. LALJEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS. D. ON 5.9.2005 RS. 10,000/- THIS IS A CHEQUE TR ANSFER FROM MOLY COLIOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED . UNFORTUNATELY, THE PAY IN SLIP COULD NOT BE TRACED. E. ON 13.9.2005 RS. 2,123/- THIS IS A DIVIDEND WARRANT RECEIVED. F. ON 17.2.2006 RS,3,00,000/- THIS IS A CHEQU E RECEIVED. XEROX COPY OF PAY IN SLIP IS ENCLOSED. G. ON 28.2.2006 RS. 3,90,000/- THIS IS A CHEQU E FROM ABN AMRO BANK RECEIVED FOR A PERSONAL LOAN. XEROX COPY OF DEPOSIT SLIP IS ENCLOSED. PART REPAYMENT SLIP OF THIS IS AL SO ENCLOSED. ITA NO. 5401/M/09 8 H. ON 17.3.2006 RS 1,68,209/- THIS IS A CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM ICICI BANK FOR PERSONAL LOAN. COPY OF CHEQUES AND PAY IN SLIP ARE ENCLOSED. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT . THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS. 1 148/- ON 5.4.2005, RECEIVED REFUND OF RS 1004/- FROM THE INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT AND RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS 2,123/- ON 13.9.2005 IS ACC EPTABLE. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT RECEIVED LOANS FROM THE ICICI BANK AND FROM ABN AMRO BANK IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE. THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT THAT HE RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS. 7,50,000/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE CONFIRMATION OF GIFTS R ECEIVED AND NEITHER PROVED THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO GIVE THE GIFTS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CHEQUES OF RS.3,0 0,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 17.2.2006 AND SOURCE OF CHEQUES OF RS ,10,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 5.9.2005, THE APPELLANT MERELY STATED THAT CHEQU E OF RS. 10,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY ON 5.9.2005 . THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS. 10,60,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS UPHELD. THE BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AS A RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. WHILE WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF MOST OF THE DEPOSITS, WE FEEL THAT IN SO FAR AS CHEQUES FOR RS. 7,50,000/- IS CON CERNED, WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING GIFT FROM G RANDFATHER, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTA NTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIFTS FROM HIS GRANDFATHER BY WAY O F CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,50,000/- AND THEREFORE WE REMIT THE ISSUE IN SO FAR AS CHEQUES OF RS. 7,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES GRANDFATHER TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE MATTER AFRESH A FTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. WE UPHOLD ITA NO. 5401/M/09 9 THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF CONFIR MATION OF THE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,10,000/-. 14. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE REV ENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA V IJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR H BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5401/M/09 10 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 25.11.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 26.11.2010 ______ 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 COMES 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 FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______