The ACIT, Circle-5, Surat V. Shri Chhanabhai K.Patel,

ITA 783/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9281 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJEET KUMAR N
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH B SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 69

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAR, JM AND D.C.AGRAW AL, AM ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-5, SURAT. VS. SHRI CHHANABHAI K. PATEL, KATHOR, P.O. KAMREJ, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND SHRI CHHANABHAI K. PATEL, AT & PO KATHOR, B/H GALARA HIGH SCHOOL, TAL. KAMREJ, SURAT. VS. ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-5, SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :- SHRI ABHIJEET KUMAR N. DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI RASESH B. SHAH, A.R. O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE REVE NUE AND THE OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) DATED 10.12.2007. ITA NO.783/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 (REVENUES A PPEAL) 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL :- ITA NO.783/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR :2004-05 ITA NO.863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR :2004-05 ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .4,00,000/- BEING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CRUDE OIL EXPENSES MADE B Y THE AO. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .73,258/- BEING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR THE PURP OSE OF SPARE PARTS MADE BY THE AO. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .2,81,218/- BEING LABOUR EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE AO. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DIESEL EXPENSES TO RS.20,000/- INSTEAD OF ADDITION OF RS.1 ,59,548/- MADE BY THE AO. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .25,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S SHIV SHAKTI PETROLEUM. ITA NO.863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS I N ITS APPEAL :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32,014/- BEI NG 20% OUT OF TELEPHONE, MISCELLANEOUS & POSTAGE EXPENSES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,112/- BEI NG 20% OUT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & MOTORCAR DEPRECIATION EXPENSES. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/- ON AC COUNT OF CARTING EXPENSES U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.1,59,548/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES . 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A GOV ERNMENT CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF QUARRY. THE ASSESSEE FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON AN INCOME OF RS.24,62,060/- AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AT RS.38,74,210/-ON 28.12.2006. REVENUES APPEAL 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS BEING DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF CRUDE OIL EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WA S A DEBIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS FOR PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL FROM JALARAM OIL CE NTRE, SURAT. FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS AO NOTICED A PAYMENT OF RS.4 LACS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE AO THEN CALLED FOR A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE BROKER SHRI KANAIYALAL KHICHI U/S 133(6). SHRI KANA IYALAL KHICHI IN HIS LETTER DATED 4.12.2006 DID NOT CONFIRM THE TRANSACT ION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE CLARIFIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE ASS ESSEE NOR HIS FIRM. HE ALSO INFORMED HIS ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS. ON THIS B ASIS THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PAYMENT MA DE TO AND TRANSACTIONS WITH JALARAM OIL CENTRE. TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT NOTHING WAS HEARD FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVID ENCE IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENT WHEREIN THE PAYMENT WAS FOUND RECEIV ED BY SHRI JALARAM OIL CENTRE. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ABOVE BANK STATEMENT AND WHETHER P AYMENT WAS ACTUALLY ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 4 MADE TO JALARAM OIL CENTRE AND GOODS IN QUESTION WE RE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT VID E LETTER DATED 13.12.2006 THE AO WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE DETAILS OF JALARAM OIL CENTRE AND THE PAYMENT MADE TO IT. 7. THE LD. DR IN RESPONSE TO THIS SAID THAT SUCH LE TTER WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE AO. 8. THE SECOND ADDITION IS OF RS.73,258/- BEING DISA LLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SPARE PARTS. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.3,91,258/- FOR PURCHASE OF SPARE PARTS FROM M /S UMIYA AUTOMOBILES. THE AO CARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT ACCOUNT OF TWO PARTIES DID NOT TALLY AND ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXCESS LIABILITY OF RS.73,258/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLA NATION TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUN D THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE OPENING BALANCE WHICH RELATED TO AN EARLIER YEAR AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. 10. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITT ED THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO AND FAILED T O POINT OUT HOW THE DIFFERENCE PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEAR. IN THIS PROCE SS AO HAS LOST VALUABLE TIME FOR TAKING REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE RELEVANT AS ST. YEAR. ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 5 11. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT VID E LETTER DATED 13.12.2006 ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE. T HE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER IS DENIED BY THE LD. DR. 12. THE THIRD ADDITION IS OF RS.2,81,218/- BEING TH E LABOUR EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED TOTAL LABOUR EXP ENSES OF RS.28,12,181/-. HE FOUND THAT PAYMENT MADE TO LABOU RERS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THEY ARE EITHER UNVOUCHED OR VOUCHER DI D NOT CARRY ANY SIGNATURE OF THE PERSONS RECEIVING THE MONEY. THE A DDRESS OF LABOURERS WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AO DISALLOWED 10% OF TOTAL CLAIM RESULTING IN AN ADDIT ION OF RS.2,81,218/-. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A ASSESSEE HAS MA DE DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS AND SUCH DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DEEMED T O BE COVERED WITHIN SUCH DISCLOSURE. 14. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE DISCLOSURE AND HOW SUCH ADDITIONS COULD BE COVERED IN THE DISCLOSURE. 15. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A). 16. NEXT ADDITION IS OF RS.20,000/- RETAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,59,548/- DISALLOWED BY THE A O OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.15,95,480/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DIESEL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 6 BILLS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THEREFORE, AO DISALL OWED 10% OF THE CLAIM RESULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS.1,59,548/-. 17. THE LD. CIT(A) RETAINED ONLY AN ADDITION OF 10% AND DELETED THE REST. 18. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GI VEN ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 20. THE NEXT ADDITION IS OF RS.25,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES MADE FROM SHIV SHAKTI PETROLE UM. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND T HAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF DIESEL AND MADE P AYMENT OF RS.12,500/- EACH IN CASH ON 15.10.2003 AND ON 16.10 .2003 WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAYMENTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE AO HAD CALLED FOR COPY OF THE ACCOUNT FROM SHIV SHAKTI PETROLEUM AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. NO EXPL ANATION CAME FORWARD TO THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS.25,000/-. 21. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROU ND THAT BOOKS OF THIRD PARTY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON UNLESS OPPORTUNIT Y OF REBUTTAL IS GIVEN BY THE AO. 22. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF ACCOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHIV SHAKTI PETROLEUM . IF ALL OTHER TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY SHIV SHAKTI PETROLEUM IN R ESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 7 ARE CORRECT THEN THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS TRANSA CTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS WRONG. 23. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT A REPLY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON 13.12.2006 WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LD. DR. ASSESSEES APPEAL 24. THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS.1,2 & 4. AN D THEREFORE, THEY ARE TREATED AS REJECTED. 25. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CARTING EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 45,15,069/- AS CARTING EXPENDITURE TO THE TRANSPORTER NAMELY SHRI VIJAY C. PATEL. THIS PARTY CONFIRMED THE TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT DID NOT PROVIDE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AS ACCORDIN G TO HIM HE IS ASSESSED ONLY UNDER SECTION 44AE BEING A TRANSPORTE R AND HE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, FROM THE CO PY OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI VIJAY C. PATEL IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AO NOT ICED THAT TRANSPORTATION WORK TOTALING TO RS.12,14,800/- HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT. THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT PARTY WAS RS .3,93,357/- MEANING THEREBY THAT THIS MUCH SUM WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI VIJA Y C. PATEL AS ON 1.4.2003. FURTHER WORK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,14,80 0/- WAS DONE RESULTING IN TOTAL PAYABLE AMOUNT OF RS.16,08,157/-. DURING W HOLE YEAR A PAYMENT OF RS.3,68,700/- WAS MADE. THUS TOTAL WORK CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR REMAINED UNPAID WITH SOME AMOUNT PAYABLE PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE AS TO HOW THE TRANSPORTER WILL WOR K WITHOUT GETTING THE PAYMENT, THE AO RECORDED HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTIO N 131. IT WAS FOUND ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 8 THAT SHRI VIJAY C. PATEL HAS BORROWED A SUM OF RS.1 ,50,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE SEVEN YEARS AGO WHICH WAS REPAID IN TWO SU BSEQUENT YEARS. HE HAD INCURRED RS.7,50,000/- IN ASST. YEAR 2003-04 ON TRANSPORTATION WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE. ASKING HIM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE, SHRI VIJAY C. PATEL REPLIED THAT SHORTAGE OF CASH W AS MET BY THE ASSESSEE BY PAYING CASH TO HIM AND FURTHER THAT SOME EXPENDI TURE WAS DIRECTLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS BEHALF. HE CONFESSED THAT SU M OF RS.4 LACS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECORDED THE SAME IN THE BOOKS. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN BUT FINDING NO EXPLANATION HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS. 26. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE SHRI VIJAY C. PATEL AND HIS STATEMENT HA S BEEN RELIED UPON WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE. 27. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE WAS CALLED FOR BUT NO REPLY WAS SUBMITTED. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF BOTH TH E APPEALS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CO NSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTU NITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME. THUS THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. FURTHER THE AO HAS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAT C. PATEL. THUS THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF NA TURAL JUSTICE BOTH BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ISSUES ON WHICH TH E DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED AND BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE FURNISHED THE D ETAILED REPLY ON 13.12.2006 AND THE LD. AR SHOWS THAT THIS LETTER WA S ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE WARD OF THE AO. BUT SURPRISINGLY NO REFERENCE OF TH IS LETTER IS FOUND IN ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 9 THE ORDER OF AO. IT WAS EXPECTED THAT EXPLANATION T O IMPORTANT MATTERS RAISED BY THE AO SHOULD BE FURNISHED PERSONALLY BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ENTRY TO T HAT EFFECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ORDER SHEET. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER SUCH EXPLANATION BEFORE FINALLY MAKING ADDITION. WE ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ISSUES ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ISSUE IN GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE FILE OF AO WHO WILL DECIDE THEM AFRESH BY OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE WIL L ALSO CONSIDER TO GIVE TELESCOPING EFFECT TO DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE AO WILL OTHERWISE GIVE CO GENT REASONS FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION AS COVERED IN THE DISCLOSU RE OF RS.10 LACS. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE RESTORE THE TWO APPEALS ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED ABOVE TO THE FILE OF AO. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.11.10. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30.11.10. MAHATA/- ITA NOS.783 & 863/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 11/11/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 23/11/2010 MEMBER.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 .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..