Shri Shailesh Gopalbhai Akbari, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Addl. Commr. Income Tax, Range-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 666/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1198 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MJ RANPURA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 273B; 271D; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.666/RJT/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI M/S.TULSI INFRA 1-VAISHALI NAGAR RAIYA ROAD NR.AMRAPALI CINEMA, RAJKOT VS. THE ADDL.CIT RANGE-2 RAJKOT [PAN NO. ACRPA 7427 Q] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J. RANPURA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDER KUMAR, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 19/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/ 12 /2019 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)III, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-III/0060/13-14 DAT ED 16/09/2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 26 /03/2013 AND PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271D OF THE ACT DATED 01/05/2013 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II I, RAJKOT [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG PENALTY U/S.271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TO THE ACT] OF 14,80,000/- LEVIED BY THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY BEING TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED ON FACT S AS ALSO IN LAW MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED. 3.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN TREATED AS GENUINE BY THE AO. THUS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING THE LOANS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND THE PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4.0 YOUR HONORS APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, OR WITHDRAW ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEA L. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. C IT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 , AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,80,000/- 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS RECEIVED LOAN IN CASH FOR A SUM OF RS.14,80,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS. SR. NO. NAME(S/SHRI) AMOUNT(IN RS.) RELATION 1. JAGDISHBHAI R. RAMOLIA 1,75,000/- FATHER 2. VARSHABEN S. AKBARI 1,90,000/- MOTHER 3. GOPALBHAI G. AKBARI 4,75,000/ - WIFE 4. RAMESH J. VIRADIYA 1,25,000/- MATERNAL UNCLES SON 5. MUKESHBHAI RAMOLIA 1,50,000/ - MATERNAL UNCLE 6. VANITABEN M. RAMOLIA 1,75,000/- MATERNAL AUNTY 7. JYOTSNABEN G. AKBARI 1,90,000/- WIFES PATERNAL UNCLE TOTAL 14,80,000/ - ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO INITIATED THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D OF THE ACT, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16/04/2013. THE A SSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE TO SUCH NOTICE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY REPLY BEFORE THE AO. TH EREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE UNSECURED CASH LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE AO LEV IED THE PENALTY OF RS. 14,80,000/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 3.2. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO TH E LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE HE HAS TA KEN CASH FROM HIS CLOSE RELATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY WHICH WERE DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT T HEIR (LOAN PARTIES) PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. ASS ESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IF SUCH LOANS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE SUCH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 3.3. THE TRANSACTION OF RECEIVING THE CASH FROM THE RELATIVES WAS WITHIN THE FAMILY. THE AO DID NOT DOUBT THIS FACT. THEREFORE T HE PENALTY PROVISION U/S 271D OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ATTRACTED TO THE TRANSACTION M ADE AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS. 3.4. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3.4. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY, THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT, NE ITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - UNDERSIGNED, HAS ADDUCED ANY CREDIBLE ARGUMENTS WIT H SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE IN ACCEPTING CASH LOANS BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED CREDITORS, WHO HAVE GIVEN CASH LOANS, IS FROM AGRICULTURE. HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF KUMARI A.B. SHANTHI IN 255 ITR 258, WHILE UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VAL IDITY OF SECTION 269SS AND 271D OF THE IT ACT, 1961 HAS OBSERVED THAT 269SS R.W.S. 271D HAS BEEN B ROUGHT INTO STATUTE BOOK UNDER CHAPTER XX- B TO CURB THE MENACE OF BLACK MONEY CIRCULATION, WH ICH LEADS TO EVASION OF TAXES. THESE PROVISIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY MEANT TO COUNTER ACT EVA SION OF TAX BY DEBARRING THE TAX PAYERS FROM ACCEPTING UNSECURED LOANS/DEPOSITS IN CASH. IN FAC T, THE ORIGINAL SECTION 276DD WAS MORE STRINGENT IN AS MUCH AS IT PROVIDES IMPRISONMENT OF THE PERSON, WHO ACCEPTS CASH LOANS UPTO TWO YEARS AND ALSO LIABLE TO A FINE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT. THE NEWER SECTION 271D PROVIDES ONLY FOR FINE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN/ DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED. 6. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO GIVE ANY CREDIBLE E XPLANATION, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT T O ACCEPT CASH LOANS, AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LOANS IN CASH AR E TAKEN TO PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DO NOT CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE IN TERMS OF SECTION 273B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ALSO FAILED TO PLACE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INCOME OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAVE GIVEN CASH LOANS IS FROM AGRICULTURE. THE APPELLANT, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, A REGULAR TAX PAYER CANNOT BE IGNORAN T OF THESE PENAL PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO COUNTER THE TAX EVASION. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED SQUARELY BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE I T ACT, 1961 FOR CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 269SS OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, I UP HOLD THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.14,80,000/- U/S.271D OF THE IT ACT, 1961. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNN ING FROM PAGES 1 TO 66 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THE RELATIVES. 4.1. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 269SS WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE STATUE INTENDING TO DETER THE ASS ESSEE OF JUSTIFYING UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH/SURVEY. AS SUCH THE OBJECT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS WAS TO DISCOURAGE THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE IR UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY TAKING ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - CASH ENTRIES FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN IN CASH. THEREFORE NO IMMUNITY CAN BE GIVEN UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271D R. W.S. 273B OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION WE NOTE CERTA IN FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: I) THE AO DID NOT DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION. OTHERWISE THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. II) THE TRANSACTION WAS CARRIED OUT WITH THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE FIND IMPORTANT TO REFER TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT BEARING NO.387 DATED 06/07/1984 WHICH READS AS UNDER: CIRCULAR NO.387 EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PROVISION OF THE FINANCE A CT, 1984. BENAMI LOANS AND DEPOSITS S 281A 269SS 276DD (XXIV) PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING OR ACCEPTING CERT AIN LOANS AND DEPOSITS IN CASH ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - 32.1 UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ES CARRIED OUT BY THE IT DEPARTMENT IS OFTEN EXPLAINED BY TAXPAYERS AS REPRESENTING LOANS FROM OR DEPOSITS MADE BY VARIOUS PERSONS. UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS ALSO BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF SUCH LOANS AND DEPOSITS, AND TAXPAYERS ARE ALSO ABLE TO GET CONFIR MATORY LETTER FROM SUCH PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EXPLANATION. 32.1 WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THIS DEVICE, WHICH M EANS TAXPAYERS TO EXPLAIN AWAY UNACCOUNTED CASH OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS, THE FINAN CE ACT HAS INSERTED A NEW S. 269SS IN THE IT ACT DEBARRING PERSON FROM TAKING TO ACCEPTING, AFTE R 30 TH JUNE, 1984 FROM ANY OTHER PERSONS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMO UNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT IS RS.10000 OR MORE. THIS PROHIBITION WILL ALSO APPLY IN CASES WHE RE ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR THE AGGREG ATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT IS RS.10000 OR MORE. THIS PROHIBITION WILL ALSO APPLY IN CASES WHERE ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT, ANY LOAN OR DEPOSI T TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REP AYMENT HAS FALLEN DUE OR NOT), AND THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID IS RS.10,000 OR MORE. THE PROHIBITION WILL ALSO APPLY IN CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN O R DEPOSIT, TOGETHER WITH THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID ON THE DATE OF WHICH SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN IS RS.10,000 OR MORE. 6.2 FROM THE ABOVE WE NOTE THAT THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 269SS WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE STATUE TO DISCOURAGE THE ASSESSEE TO JUST IFY THEIR UNACCOUNTED MONEY. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE ON HAND, THERE IS NO ALLEGATIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN HIS BUSINESS. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBJECT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT THE CASH TRANSACTION WHICH IS GENUINE CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE NET OF TAX UNDER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. 6.3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHAK SINGH VS. CIT REPORTED IN 37 TAXM ANN.COM 390 AS REFERRED BY THE LD. DR, WERE DIFFERENT SO FAR THERE WAS NO ISSU E OF CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER PARTIES PROVIDED LOAN IN CAS H. BUT IN THE CASE ON HAND, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CLOSE RELATIVES. SO, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO RELY ON THE SAME. ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - 6.4. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE RELATIVES AND SISTER CONCERN ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF G.D. SUBRAYA SHEREGAR VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, UDUPI (10 SOT 378) WHERE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPR ODUCED AS UNDER: 6. THE EXPRESSION 'ANY OTHER PERSON' APPEARING IN SEC TION 269SS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE TWO BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE VIEW IS THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION EXCLUDES ALL THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH TH E ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER VIEW IS TO THE OPPOSITE EFFECT. BOTH VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE VIEWS. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED [REFER CIT V. MADHO PD. JATIA [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC)]. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS SUCH AS FATHER AND SON MUST BE HELD TO FALL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 269SS. 6.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. THERE FORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THUS, WE ARE IN CLINED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT. HENCE , THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 / 1 2 /201 9 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18 12 /2019 .., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.666/RJT/2014 SHAILESH GOPALBHAI AKBARI VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' #! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' #! ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, RAJKOT 5. '() ! , , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. )45 67 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '! ! //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !', / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION 17.12.2019 (WORD PROCESSED BY HONBLE AM IN HIS COMPUTER BY DR AGON) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.12.2019 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.18.12.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.12.19 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