Smt. Ranjanben D Patel, Vadodara V. The. Income Tax Officer,Ward-2(5), Baroda

ITA 749/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8173 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. RANJANBEN D. PATEL ............APPELL ANT 31, AMARKUNJ SOCIETY, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA 390001 [PAN ABJPP 8550 G] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER .......................RESPONDENT WARD 2 (5), BARODA APPEARANCES BY: MK PATEL FOR THE APPELLANT SANTOSH KARNANI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 21.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 21.11.2017 D I C T A T E D O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- 1. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT A ND ADOPTING THE SALE PRICE AS PER THE JANTRI VALUE PREVAILING ON THE DAT E OF SALE DEED, INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT VALUE AS ON DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SAL E, AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TH E PROPERTY FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,00,000/-, BUT THE VALUE OF T HE SAID PROPERTY AS PER THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS RS.87,39,118/-. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS, INTER ALIA, BY ADOPTING STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS THE VALUE AT WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD. AGGRIEVED, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 6 APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE ME, LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SHORT POINT WITH RESPECT TO REF ERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY UNDER SCHEME OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. HE, HOWEVER, FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT NO SUCH SPECIFIC REQUE ST WAS MADE BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HAVING SAID THAT HE INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL VS DCIT, REPORTED IN 150 ITD 597, WHEREIN, FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF THE HONBL E CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT (GA NO 3686/2013 IN ITAT NO 221/ 2013; JUDGMENT DATED 13TH MARCH 2014), THE DIV ISION BENCH HAS HELD THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE NO SUCH PRAYER IS MADE BY THE LEARN ED ADVOCATE REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE, WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTRUCTED IN LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DISCHARGING A QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION, HAS THE BOUN DEN DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY AND TO GIVE A FAIR TREATMENT BY GIVING HIM AN OPTION TO FOLLOW TH E COURSE PROVIDED BY LAW. IN OTHER WORDS, LEARNED COUNSELS STAND IS THAT WHETHER OR N OT THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS FOR A REFERENCE TO THE DVO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO GIVE HIM AN OPTION FOR THE SAME WHICH, BEYOND ANY CONTROVERSY, HAS NOT GIVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEK ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO , OBVIOUSLY SUCH A REFERENCE CANNOT BE THRUST UPON HIM. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, TO TAKE A CALL AS TO W HETHER OR NOT HE SEEKS A REFERENCE BEING MADE TO THE DVO. 7. I FIND THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, BY THE DIVISION BENCH ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL (SUPRA), WHEREIN, FOLLOWING THE VIEW S EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE COURT ABOVE, THE DIVISION BENCH HAS HELD THAT IRRES PECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR REFERENCE BEING MADE TO THE DVO IN THE CASE OF STAMP DUTY VALUE BEING IN ABSENCE OF STATED SALES CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO GIVE AN OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A REFERENCE BEING MADE TO THE DVO. THESE VIEWS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE, CONSTITUTE BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT TO THIS BENCH . 6. WE FIND THAT HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAS SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION RATE. THE M ERE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION CANNOT BE PUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITY FOR THE THIS PROPOSITION IS CONTAINED IN, HONBLE SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 6 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT, IN THE CASE O F CIT VS CHANDRA NARAIN CHAUDHURI ([2013] 38 TAXMANN.COM 275 (ALLAHABAD), W HEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE OBSERVED THAT, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY TO DISPUTE THE VALUATION, OR FILED APPEAL OR REVISION OR MADE REFERENCE BEFORE A NY AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT UNDER SUB SECTION (2) (B) OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT IS NOT OF ANY RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE, AS THE AO HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE STAMP VALUATION BEFORE THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE PURCHASER NOT TO FILE SU CH OBJECTION. A PURCHASER MAY NOT GO INTO LITIGATION, AND PAY STAMP DUTY, AS FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, WHICH MAY BE OVER AND ABOVE TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THOUGH THE AM OUNT SO DETERMINED HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. T HE POSITION AS TO WHETHER REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DVO, EVEN WHEN THER E IS NO SPECIFIC PLEA TO THAT EFFECT BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOW WELL SET OUT IN HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL CIT ( GA NO 3686/2013 IN ITAT NO 221/ 2013; JUDGMENT DATED 13TH MARCH 201 4), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- . WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUATION BY THE DEP ARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 50C, IS REQUIRED TO AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE LEGISLATURE DID N OT INTEND THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE FIXED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION TO BE MADE BY THE DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPO SE OF STAMP DUTY. THE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN CARE TO PROVIDE ADE QUATE MACHINERY TO GIVE A FAIR TREATMENT TO THE CITIZEN/TAXPAYER. T HERE IS NO REASON WHY THE MACHINERY PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE SHOUL D NOT BE USED AND THE BENEFIT THEREOF SHOULD BE REFUSED. EVEN IN A CASE WHERE NO SUCH PRAYER IS MADE BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE REPRESE NTING THE ASSESSEE, WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INSTRUCTED IN LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DISCHARGING A QUASI JUDICIAL FUN CTION, HAS THE BOUNDEN DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY AND TO GIVE A FAIR TREAT MENT BY GIVING HIM AN OPTION TO FOLLOW THE COURSE PROVIDED BY LAW . 7. AS THERE IS NO BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT CONTRA RY TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, AS ABOVE, THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF THEIR LORDSHIPS, EVEN THOUGH FROM A NON JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT, BIND US AS WELL. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SET OUT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL, IS INDEED WELL TAKEN. THE PREVAILING LEGAL POSITION IS NOW LIKE THIS. ONCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AC TUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND OR BUILDING IS LESS THAN STAMP DUTY VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER TH E VALUATION OF SAID LAND OR BUILDING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE SO. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO AFTER MAKING A SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 4 OF 6 REFERENCE TO THE DVO, AND COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION SO RECEIVED FROM THE DVO. WHILE SO DECIDI NG THE MATTER AFRESH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE LAW, BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT SO. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND BEARING IN M IND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERT AINING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 9. IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, WHICH ARE INTERCONNECTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO THE SOCIETY. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUG HT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.6,74,310/- WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 10. SO FAR AS THESE GRIEVANCES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTI ON ABOUT THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS.6,74,310/- TO THE SOCIETY WHICH, ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE NOW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL G AINS BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 48(I) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE MADE T HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE TIME, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUN D THAT NEITHER THERE WAS ANY APPLICATION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOR TH ERE IS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE THUS CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED PROPER TO ALLOW ANY SUCH CLAIM . THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 11 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 12. I HAVE NOTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO HAVE CLAIMED THE SAID EXPENS E OF RS.6,74,310/- AND I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE ADMISSI ON OF THIS EVIDENCE AT THE THRESHOLD ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. AS IT APPEA RS FROM THE PLAIN READING ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, CIT(A) DID NOT, AT ANY STATE, P OINTS THIS OUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE AB SENCE OF A FORMAL PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 46A AND THUS, THE REJECTION SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 5 OF 6 WAS PURELY ON A TECHNICAL GROUND. SUCH APPROACH OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE INCONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. IN THIS REGARD, I MAY ALSO REFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF SHRI G. KRISHNAMURTY, THE TH EN HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND WHILE ARTICULATING VIEWS ON BEHALF OF JAIPUR BENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ELECTRA (JAIPUR) (P.) LTD. VS. IAC [1988] 26 ITD 236(DEL.), WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE US, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THIS AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISQUALIFIED FROM P RODUCING THIS EVIDENCE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PLAC ED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF JUDICIARY AS OF THE REVE NUE IS TO GET AT THE TRUTH. IF THE TRUTH IS THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS GENUINE AND WAS DICTATED BY THE BUSINESS NEEDS, SUCH A PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISALL OWED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LEAD PROPER EVID ENCE OR ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE LEAD WAS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREAT E A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF SUSPICION. THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO CONSIDER ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED, TO TEST ITS AUTHENTICITY AND RELEVANCE AND THEN ACT ON IT. IF THE EVIDENCE IS GENUINE, RELIABLE, PROVES ASSESSEES CASE, THEN ASS ESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF T HE EVIDENCE LED TURNS OUT TO BE SPURIOUS, FABRICATED OR OF IRRELEVANT NATURE, SU CH CONSEQUENCES, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW, WILL ENSURE. IT IS, THEREFO RE, INCORRECT TO SHUT OUT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTIC E FROM LEADING EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CASE. THE EARLIER INABILITY TO LEAD THE E VIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS KNOWN TO THE COUR T OR SUGGESTED TO THE COURT OR THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO THE SUSPECT THAT EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED. THERE IS NO SUCH SUGGESTION IN THIS CASE. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS REASONABLE AND REQUEST MA DE BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE REFUSAL OF ITS ADMISSION IS NOT PROPER......' 13. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF THIS TECHNICALITY AT THE THRESHOLD IT SELF, BUT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. I, THEREFORE, REMIT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT M EMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 21 ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 **BT SMC-ITA NO. 749/AHD/2015 SMT RANJANBEN D PATEL VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 6 OF 6 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ......5 PAGES DICTATION PAD ATTACHED.21.11.2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 21.11.2017........ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: ... 21.11.2017.... . 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT:. 21.11.2017.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : .... 24.11.2017. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: