NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 902/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49083 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RK GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN (JM) I.T.A.NOS. 901 & 902/MUM/2010. (A.YS. 2004-05 & 2006-07) ) NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK B-2, NIRLON KNOWLEDGE PARK, NIRLON COMPLEX, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI-4000 063. PAN: AABCN1254B. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-9(2)(3)/ ADDL. CIT, RANGE 9(2), MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R .K. GUPTA. O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE DI SPOSING THESE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. A.Y. 2004-05 : 2. THE FIRST GROUND HAS TWO COMPONENTS. FIRST PART IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,64,282/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BA D DEBTS. SECOND PART OF THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE RESTORATION OF THE DISALLOWAN CE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS IN RESPECT OF INABLING TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INTERNET AND WEB HOSTING SERVIC ES. A SUM OF RS.59,54,553/- WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS AFTER REDUCING THE AMO UNT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.60.82 LAKHS FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WRITTEN BACK AT RS. 120.37 LAKHS. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO FURNISH DETAILS OF BAD DEBTS, THE ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY DETAILS. ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 2 EVIDENCE REGARDING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINS T THREE PARTIES WAS ALSO FILED, WHOSE BALANCE STOOD AT THE AGGREGATED FIGUR E OF RS.41.76 LAKHS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE I TS CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS RELATING TO 24 PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.10,00,727/-. THIS A MOUNT INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.7,36,245/- ON ACCOUNT OF BALANCE DUE AND WRITTEN OFF OF M/S. INABLING TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AO NOTED THAT EVEN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT STARTED. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,727/-. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.2,64,2 82/-. AS REGARDS THE DEBT OF RS.7,36,245/- DUE FROM M/S. INABLING TECHNOLOGIE S PVT. LTD. AND WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED ABOUT THIS COMPANY BEING WOUND UP BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS CONTENTION AND ALLOW DEDUCTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT ON ASSESSEES PRODUCING COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTE N OFF, INTER ALIA, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS AS BAD DEBTS. NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CI T(A) HAD DENIED THAT THE CONDITION OF SEC. 36(2) HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. IT SHOWS THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR AN EARLIER YEAR, THEREBY SATISFYING THE CONDITIO NS U/S. 36(2). SEC. 36(1)(VII) TALKS OF GRANTING OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DE BT WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE PREVIOUS YEAR SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(2). THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN T.R.F. LTD. VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. STAR COMMERCIAL (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD.(2009) 313 ITR 126 (BO M) HAVE HELD THAT ONCE ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE DEBT AS BAD DEBT, THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 36(1)(VII) ARE SATISFIED AND THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N OF BAD DEBT IS ALLOWABLE. THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE LAID DOWN THAT THE MERE WRITIN G OFF OF THE BAD DEBTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS SUFFICIENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTI ON U/S.36(1)(VII) AND THERE IS NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT SHOULD H AVE BECOME BAD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE ABOVE REFERRED SUM OF RS.10,00,727/- AS BAD DEBTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PARTLY REJECTING THE CLAIM AND PARTLY RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR DELETION OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,727/-. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.11,69,675/- INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES A S FALLING UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS : 1 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 5,06,442/- 2 INTEREST ON I.T. REFUND 36,910/- 3 INTEREST ON LOANS 1,90,632/- 4 FINANCE CHARGES ON LEASED ASSETS 4,35,691/- 5 DEBIT/CREDIT BALANCES W/OFF/W/BACK 59,54,553/- THE AO HELD ITEMS AT SERIAL NOS. 1 TO 4 AS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE LAST ITEM, BEING ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 4 DEBIT/CREDIT BALANCES WRITTEN OFF/WRITTEN BACK AMOU NTING TO RS.59.54 LAKHS. NO RELIEF WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 6.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FIRST ITEM OF THE AB OVE TABLE IS INTEREST ON DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.5,06,442/-. PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOO K CONTAINS DETAILS OF SUCH INTEREST RECEIVED ON FIXED DEPOSITS DURING THE YEA R. SOME PART OF THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE ARISEN FROM THE INVES TMENT OF SPARE FUNDS, WHEREAS THE OTHER PART HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE ARI SEN FROM FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IN SO FAR AS INTEREST INCOME ON INVESTMENT OF SPARE FUNDS IS CON CERNED, IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TO THIS EXTENT, THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO CONCEDED. HOWEVER, INTEREST INCOME ON FDRS, WHICH W ERE MADE FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSES AND FOR PLEDGING AS BANK GUARAN TEE ETC., HAS TO BE TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT BUT F OR SUCH BUSINESS EXIGENCY THESE FDRS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE THE DETAILS NOW SOUGHT TO BE PLACED BEFORE US BY WAY OF PAGE-6 OF THE PAPER B OOK, DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFYING SUCH DETAILS AND DECIDE ABOUT THE HEAD UNDER WHICH SUCH INTEREST INCOME IS TAXABLE IN ACCO RDANCE WITH OUR AFORESAID DIRECTIONS, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS INTEREST ON INCOME-TAX R EFUND AMOUNTING TO RS.36,910/-. IT IS MANIFEST THAT INTEREST ON INCOME -TAX REFUND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS `BUSINESS INCOME AND HAS RIGHTLY BEE N TREATED AS INCOME FROM ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 5 OTHER SOURCES BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. A. R. FAIRLY CONCEDED ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORD ER ON THIS SCORE. 8. NEXT IS INTEREST ON LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,90,6 32/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CERTAIN PREMISES ON LEASE. PART OF THAT, WHIC H WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES, WAS PROPOSED TO BE LEASED OUT TO M/S. MEDUSIND SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. M/S. MEDUS IND SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD. WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT SECURITY TOTALING RS.21.18 LAKH S TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE THEY WERE SHORT OF FUNDS, THEY APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF FOR ADVANCING LOAN OF EQUAL AMOUNT TO THEM WHICH WAS IN TURN GIVEN BACK TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS SECURITY DEPOSIT. ON SUCH LOAN OF RS.21.18 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE CHARGED INTEREST DURING THE YEAR AT RS.1,9 0,632/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT AC CEPT THIS CONTENTION AND TREATED IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE APPROVE THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE LD. C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE REASON THAT PRIMARILY IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ADVANCE LOANS. SECONDLY, THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO M/S. MEDUSIN D SOLUTIONS INDIA P.LTD. WHO WERE TO TAKE A PART OF THE PREMISES TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE ON LEASE ON A FURTHER LEASE FOR 3 YEARS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO NEXUS OF THE FUNDS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. MEDUSIND SOLUTIONS INDIA P. LTD. WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT, WHICH IS THAT OF INTERNE T AND WEB HOSTING SERVICES. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT SUCH INTEREST WAS RIGHTLY INCL UDED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. THE LAST ITEM IS FINANCE CHARGES ON LEASED ASSE TS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,35,691/-. THE DETAILS OF SUCH FINANCE CHARGES ON LEASED ASSETS HAVE BEEN ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 6 GIVEN AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE SUBMISS IONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 37 TO 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HOUSED NUMEROUS DATA SERV ERS (COMPUTERS) WHICH HAD INTERNET CONTENT TO BE ACCESSED BY VARIOUS PERSONNE L AS PART OF ITS INTERNET SERVICES BUSINESS. SOME OF THE LARGE CUSTOMERS HAV ING REQUIREMENT FOR HIGHER NUMBER OF DATA SERVERS APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS FOR TAKING ON LEASE CERTAIN DATA SERVERS. THE ASSESSEE, INSTEAD OF ALLOWING USE OF ITS SERVERS BY DEPLOYING ITS OWN ST AFF, GAVE ON FINANCE LEASE THESE DATA SERVERS TO ITS CUSTOMERS AT ITS OWN PREMISES, IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT RECOVERED LEASE RENT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SUCH FINANCE LEASE CHARGES AT RS.4,35,691/-, WHICH AMOUNT IS UNDER CON SIDERATION. AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF INTERNET AND WEB HOSTING SERVICES, INSTEAD OF USING ITS DATA SERVERS FOR CUSTOMERS INDIVIDUALLY, IT LEASED OUT ITS DATA SERVERS TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS WHO HAD LARGER REQUIREMENTS OF INTERNET A ND WEB HOSTING SERVICES, IT IS NOTHING BUT EXPLOITATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSETS FOR B USINESS PURPOSE. THESE DATA SERVERS WERE RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PREMIS ES AND ONLY THE USER WAS PROVIDED TO SUCH CUSTOMERS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH LEASING OF DATA SERVER S ON A WHOLESALE BASIS (AS IS THE CASE UNDER REVIEW BY LEASING SUCH DATA SERVERS) AND THAT RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS ON RETAIL BASIS. IN BOTH THE C ASES, THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS THAT OF INTERNET AND WEB HOS TING SERVICES, HAS BEEN CARRIED ON. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT FINANCE CHARGES ON LEA SED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,35,691/- WERE LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSI NESS INCOME AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE AGAINST NON-CONSIDERATION OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF MAT U/S.115JB. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 7 A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S.115JB. THE AO D ID NOT ACCEPT SUCH REVISED COMPUTATION AS IN HIS OPINION, THE TIME LIMIT FOR F ILING THE REVISED RETURN HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. THE LD. CIT(A), RELYING ON THE JUD GMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT ( 2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THIS POINT. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO FINALLY COMPUT ED THE TOTAL INCOME U/S.115JB AS TAX PAYABLE ON SUCH INCOME WAS HIGHER THAN THE T AX PAYABLE ON THE INCOME COMPUTED UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS. WHEN THE ASS ESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S.115JB, THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED ON M ERITS. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA ) DOES NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CONSIDER THE REVISED COMPUTATION U/S.115JB AS PER LAW. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED O RDER ON THIS ASPECT AND DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE REVISED COMPUTATION U/S.115J B AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. A.Y. 2006-07 : 14. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AT RS.3,22,775/-. 14.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS AP PEAL IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) IN WHIC H IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 8 DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S.14A IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES. HOWEVER, THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR MAKING ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD IN THIS CASE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THESE ARE PROSPECTIVE . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRE CT THE AO TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORENOTED CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. 15. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF DISALL OWANCE OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,15,000/-. 15.1 BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05. AS WE HAVE DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR IN ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 A BOVE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE OVERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 201 1. SD/- SD/- (SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER MUMBAI: 03RD JUNE , 2011. NG: COPY TO : ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 9 1. DEPARTMENT. 2.ASSESSEE. 3 CIT(A)-20,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-9,MUMBAI. 5.DR,B BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NOS.901 & 902/M/10 NETMAGIC SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGN ATION 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30-05-11 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 31-05-11 SR.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/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *