M/s. Karnataka instrade Corporation Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 856/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5152 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Capital receipt; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.856 (BANG) 2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPN. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S KARNATAKA MINERALS & MANUFACTURING CO.LTD.) NO.1,GEF ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, NEW BEL ROAD, MSRTI POST. BANGALORE-560 054 PAN NO.AACCK8428P APPELLANT VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K.BIJU, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-01-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A)-5, BANGALORE DATED 31-03-20 08 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS AGAINST LAW, EQUITY, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISA LLOWING A SUM OF RS.2,23,52,396/- WRITTEN OFF INVENTORIES I N THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AD DING A SUM OF RS.10,83,54,005/- AS INCOME LIABLE TO BE TAX ED AS CAPITAL GAINS, BUT OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE I T ACT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND THE OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN T HE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 20-112009 AND THEREAFTER, AS PER M.P.NO.6 (BANG)/2010 DATED 1 0-10-2010, THE MP OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. SUBSEQUENTLY, TO THI S THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT AND AS PER ITS JUDGMENT DATED 9 TH OCTOBER, 2015 IN ITA NO.116/2010, HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO TH E TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH DECISION BECAUSE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-203 , THE APPEAL OF THE ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 3 ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FOR THE PRESEN T YEAR WAS RESTORED BACK BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH DECISION. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US ON 04-01-2017, IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NO.1, 5 & 6 ARE GENE RAL AND REGARDING GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS N OT PRESSED AND GROUND NO.4 IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN VIEW OF DISPUTE FOR CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, ONLY GROUND NO. 2 HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. REGARDING THE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2, HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE-3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER LETTER DATED 02-02-2006 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPE D MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTINUES TO BE I N BUSINESS TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS ALL THE COMMITMENTS IT HAS MAD E IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF ASSETS TO M/S MADRAS CEMENT PVT. LTD. A ND THE INCOME ARISING THERE FROM IS OFFERED TO TAX AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESEE COMPANY IS STILL CARRYING ON THE S AME BUSINESS TILL IT COMPLETES ALL THE COMMITMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT AND REALIZES THE INCOME. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLI ER YEAR I.E. 2002-03, THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCONTINUED THE BUSINESS AND THIS TRI BUNAL ORDER IN THAT YEAR WAS REVERSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HE SUB MITTED A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03 IN ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 4 ITA NO.339/ 2009 DATED 09-10-2009 AND IN PARTICULAR , OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA-15 ON PAGE-23 OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS PER WHICH IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE EXPENSES ARE CONTINUED TO BE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS UNTIL IT IS SOLD. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNA L FOR FRESH DECISION AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS IN BUSINESS IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO BECAUSE THE COMMITMENTS AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS COMPLETED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.11,15,44,005/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX AND ALSO AS SESSED TO TAX IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE-4 OF THE ASSESS MENT YEAR FOR THE PRESENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONT INUED TILL THE PRESENT YEAR. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS O F CLOSING STOCK OF RS.2,23,52,396/- WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IS AVA ILABLE ON PAGE-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A COP Y OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETUR N OF INCOME AND HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO NOTE-1 IN THE SAID COMPU TATION AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS STOCK SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET HAS NO VALUE AS ON 31-03-2004 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME W AS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE AO THAT THIS STOCK WAS HAVING A VALUE AS ON 31-03-2004 AND THERE FORE, AS PER THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BEING COST OR MARKET PRICE ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 5 WHICHEVER IS LOWER, VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31 -03-2004 HAS TO BE DETERMINED AT RS.NIL AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE LOSS BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND VALUE OF OPENING STOCK IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT ALTERNATIVELY, THE VALUE OF OPENING STOCK SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE COST OF ASSETS SOLD TO M/S MADRAS CEMENT PVT. LTD. RESULTING INTO DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL CLAIM, BUT BOTH CLAIMS CANNOT BE REJECTED. 5. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST , WE RE- PRODUCE PARA-15 FROM PAGE-23 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE ASSESSES CASE OF FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ITA NO.339/2009 DATED 9-10-2015 TO SEE AS TO WHAT I S THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE W AS IN BUSINESS IN THAT YEAR OR NOT. THIS PARA READS AS UNDER; 15. AS PER THE CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT OF SALE, T HE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS TO HAND OVER THE CEMENT FAC TORY IN RUNNING CONDITION, TO RENEW THE MINING LEASE LIC ENSE AND PERFECT VARIOUS TITLES TO THE PROPERTY AND TO P URCHASE THE REMAINING LANDS, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE. THESE EXPENDITURE ARE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO PERFECT THE TITLE AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARE THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF THE SAME. TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME, TO PERFECT THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTIES THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AR E ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 6 ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS AGAINST THE BALANCES WRITTEN B ACK OF RS.34,01,644/- WHICH IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. THIS COURT IN A JUDGMENT REPORTED IN (201 1) 203 TAXMAN 200KAR.) CIT, BANGALORE VS LAWRECNE DSOUZA) HELD THAT THOUGH THE BUSINESS WAS STOPPED IN THE YE AR 1994, THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS. THIS COURT ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE CONTINUED TO BE INCURRED IN CONNEC TION WITH THE BUSINESS, UNTIL IT IS SOLD. THE TRIBUNAL DENIED THE EXPENDITURE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES ARE CLOSED IN VIEW OF THE TRANSFER OF CE MENT FACTORY, PLANT & MACHINERY. HOWEVER, AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FULFILL OTHER OBLIGA TIONS, FOR WHICH THEY HAVE TO INCUR EXPENDITURE AND THESE ARE THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY TO M/S MCL. AS STATED EARLIER, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPENDIT URE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2004-05 AND 2006-07. HENCE, ISSUES NOS.1 AND 2 ARE HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, IT COMES OUT THAT AS P ER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN BUSINESS TILL THE ASSESSEE COMPLETES ALL THE COMMITMENTS OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE ASSETS TO M/S MCL AND THE ASSETS ARE HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER. THIS IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSETS WERE HANDED OVER IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS BROUGHT TO TA X IN THE PRESENT ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 7 YEAR. HENCE, AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS DURING THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO. 7. NOW, WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ON PAGE-3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAME IS AS UNDER; 3. VIDE LETTER DATED 02-02-2006 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER; IT IS OUR HUMBLE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED, THE COMPANY CONTINUES TO BE IN THE BUSINESS TO ENSURE T HAT IT MEETS ALL THE COMMITMENTS IT HAS MADE IN THE AGREEM ENT FOR SALE OF ASSETS TO M/S MADRAS CEMENT PVT.LTD. AN D THE INCOME ARISING THERE FROM IS OFFERED TO TAX. SINCE THE INCOME ARISES ONLY WHEN ALL THE COMMITMENTS ARE MET IT HAS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY IS CARR YING ON THE SAME BUSINESS TILL SUCH DATE IT COMPLIES WIT H ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT AND REALIZES THE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUBMIT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY CANNOT BE REJECTED INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.145 AND THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED H AS BEEN PROPOSED IN YOUR NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW ALL THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPANY IS CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS TILL SUCH DATE IT COMPLETES ALL T HE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT AND REALIZES THE INCO ME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY CANNOT BE REJECTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC.145 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS HELD BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE COMPA NY ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 8 HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS. SIMILAR WAS THE SITUATI ON FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2003-04, WHEREIN THE EXPENSES WER E DISALLOWED AND THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED. IN PRINCIP LE, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04 FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ORDER WAS NO T APPEALED AGAINST. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,23,52,396/- AS INVENTORIES WRITTEN OFF. THE BREAKUP AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER; RAW MATERIALS RS. 1,89,954 WORK IN-PROGRESS RS. 38,64,078 PACKING MATERIALS RS. 12,50,631 FINISHED GOODS RS.1,70,47,733 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HOW IT HAS SUFFERED A LOSS BY ABSORBING THE STOCK. AFTE R DISCUSSING WITH ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AND BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.145 OF THE ACT, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE HEREBY REJECTED AND THE ASSESSEE IS COMPLETED AS UNDER. 8. WE ALSO FEEL IT NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THE NOTE G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAME IS AS UNDER; THE COMPANY RECORDS SHOWED CERTAIN STOCK WHICH HA D NO VALUE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WITH MADRAS CEMENT LTD IN THE OPINION O F THE COMPANY HAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING 31.3.2004, THE COMPANY HAS ABSORBED LOSS OF STOCK. WITHOUT PREJUDI CE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS LOSS OF STOCK COULD BE AD JUSTED ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 9 AGAINST SURPLUS OFFERED AS GOODWILL. IN ANY EVENT , THE OVERALL INCOME AND THE TAX THEREON REMAINS UNCHANGED. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT COMES OUT THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE OPENING STOCK APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSE E AS ON 01-04-2003 IS OF RS.2,23,52,396/- OF WHICH THE DETAILS IS AVAI LABLE ON PAGE-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE VALUE W AS NIL AS ON 31- 03-2004 AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE STOCK LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 01-04.2003 WAS OTHERWISE USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE CEMENT FACTOR Y WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HENCE, CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS STOCK WAS HAVI NG NIL VALUE, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT AS PER THE ACCEPTED METHOD OF VALU ATION OF CLOSING STOCK BEING COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER , THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IS NIL AND COST VALUE OF OPENING STOCK AS ON 01-04-2003 OF RS.2.23,52,396/- AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THIS REDUCTI ON IN VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS COMPARED TO VALUE OF OPENING STOCK HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE PRESENT YEAR SINCE THIS IS THE ACCEPTED POSI TION AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSE E IS CONTINUING IN THE PRESENT BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE AO AND CIT(A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THIS DEDUCTION OF RS.2,23, 52,396/- IN RESPECT OF THIS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN VALUE OF CLOSING ST OCK AS COMPARED TO ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 10 VALUE OF OPENING STOCK. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM OF LOSS OF RS.2,23,52,396/-. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (VIJAY PAL RAO) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : .01.2017 AM * COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.856 (B) 2008 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. , , DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICT ATING MEMBER .. 3. !' # . $ %# / $ %# # & DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR .PS. 4. ''() & * + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTAT ING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. * . %# / # . . %# # + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE PS/SR.PS .. 6 * !', + DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. ! !', ' , - ) IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. .% / 0 + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. * 1'2 / 34 & 5 + DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT 10. 0 6 / + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 11. * 7 & 0 8 + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. !) * 9() & 0 9() /#5 . + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. * 9() + DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER .