The ACIT Central-1, Indore V. Kataria Gold Jewellery P Ltd, Ratlam

ITSSA 1/Ind/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unrecorded sales, cash receipts, udhari, and unaccounted investments in building construction by Kataria Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not considering the evidence properly and by admitting additional evidence without proper confrontation to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal examined the submissions, the assessment order, and the CIT(A)'s order, and found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions as the Assessing Officer had not provided sufficient evidence to support the additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122627 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. Vs. CIT, Golden Realties
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Documents seized; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH: DB : INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The ACIT (Central)-1, Indore vs. Kataria Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., 147, Chandni Chowk, Ratlam-457001 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) For Assessee : Shri S. N Agarwal, CA Date of Hearing : 14.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. These appeals filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04.01.2022 of the Ld. CIT(A), Indore, relating to Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The grounds of both appeals are raised by the revenue read as under:- IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 2 IT (SS) A No.1/Ind/2022 (AY 2011-12) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded sales amounting to Rs.7,46,29,016/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained entries appearing on the seized BS and LPS. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded cash receipts amounting to Rs.26,65,146/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained entries appearing on the seized BS and LPS. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded udhari amounting to Rs.46,46,889/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained entries appearing on the seized BS and LPS. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unaccounted investment in the building construction of the shop premises of Rs.17,45,681/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of value adopted by the DVO. IT (SS) A No.2/Ind/2022 (AY 2012-13) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded sales amounting to Rs.6,71,88,902/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained entries appearing on the seized BS and LPS. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded cash receipts amounting to Rs.8,29,405/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained entries appearing on the seized BS and LPS. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 3 Ground No.1 of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 3. Apropos ground no. 1 the learned CIT(DR) submitted that on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct and justified and deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unrecorded sales in respect of unexplained entries appearing on seized BS and LPS. The learned CIT(DR) drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order submitted that the AO after considering the reply of assessee rightly held that the assessee has not explained the source of investment in the stock of gold and jewellery and the seized loss paper below to Shri Sameermal Kataria but no basis at all has been given by the assessee for shifting of ownership of BS and all the LPS, from assessee company to Shri Sameermal Kataria. The learned CIT(DR) also pointed out that the assessee could not produce Shri Sameermal Kataria for examination on oath in details vis-a-vis transactions notes in the impugned BS and all LPS. It was also not explained that as to whether Shir Sameermal Kataria has recorded all these transactions in his books of accounts or not or whether he indeed maintains any books of accounts also. The learned CIT(DR) IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 4 vehemently pointed out that the owners of shifting of ownership of these seized documents and transactions to Shri Sameermal Kataria has not been discharged and this stand was not taken up or raised before the Investigation Wing during the course of search or even during post search investigation of the assessee group therefore the assessee has failed to explained the entries appearing on the seized loss papers. The learned CIT(DR) submitted that the loss papers and documents were found and seized from the premises of the assessee company thus the onus lies with the assessee company to explain the transactions recorded in the said seized documents therefore the AO was right in observing and concluded that the assessee is in practice of making business transaction in katcha paper and books. 4. Further drawing our attention towards para 2.2 of first appellate order. The learned CIT(DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has called remand report from the Assessing Officer for verification of books of accounts furnished by the appellant during appellate proceedings and the AO submitted remand report on 11.04.2017 which has been reproduced in para 2.2 of the first appellate order. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 5 The learned CIT(DR) submitted that the AO again in the remand report commented on the merits of the case and rightly submitted that as it is evident from the record and other sheet noting that it was not a case wherein AO has refused admit evidence in the course of assessment proceedings nor the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause from producing such evidence and the assessee has been duly provided sufficient opportunity to furnish explanation with respect to seized material. The AO specifically alleged that the assessee is trying to push its submissions/documents before the Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the same have not been dealt by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. The AO objected to the additional evidence and repeated the allegations made in the assessment order. The learned CIT(DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) took in record written submissions vide dated 24.07.2017 and 02.11.2017, which have been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) at pages 12 to 37 of the first appellate order, of the assessee which were never confronted to the Assessing Officer for his comments, explanation and verification of facts which is violation of scheme of the Act and Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The learned CIT(DR) further pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 6 has granted relief to the assessee without any valid reason and only accepting the written submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee and without confronting the same to the AO. Therefore, the impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring the order of the AO. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. Assessee’s Representative (AR), supporting the first appellate order, submitted that the AO made addition without rightly considering and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case on his own whims and fancies which was rightly deleted by the ld.CIT(A) after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Revenue has not raised any ground regarding violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules and the ld.CIT(A) has granted due opportunity to the AO for making his comments and examination and verification of the reply and evidence submitted by the assessee despite the fact that the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, by way of written submissions, consistently submitted that the assessee has filed all the relevant documentary evidences to show that the sales and purchase bill books were seized along with books and papers IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 7 and all the transactions have been properly accounted for in the books of account duly checked by the competent auditor of the company. All the outstanding amounts were part of bill books, thus, the same cannot be alleged as unrecorded book debts. The ld. AR also drew our attention to pages 117 to 172 of the assessee’s paper book to submit that during assessment proceedings as well as first appellate proceedings, the assessee had submitted four submissions before the AO and CIT(A) explaining the details of BS-1 to BS-4 by way of submission of sale bills register, balance amount due from the parties shown as balance. Therefore, the transactions of purchase and sale undertaken by the assessee cannot be alleged as unrecorded transactions and outstanding amounts/book debts cannot be disputed in any manner. The ld. AR also pointed out that during the remand proceedings also, the assessee submitted documentary evidences again before the AO pertaining to BS-1 to BS-4 by way of submissions dated 24.02.2017 and 12.05.2017 which cannot be doubted in any manner for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR also pointed out that even before the ld. First appellate authority, the assessee explained the transaction by way of written submissions dated 14.03.2018 filed IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 8 on 23.02.2018 explaining BS-1 to BS-3 by way of relevant documentary evidence and details, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. The ld. AR lastly submitted that the first appellate order may kindly be upheld by dismissing the ground No.1 of the Revenue for both the years. 6. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, from the first appellate order, we note that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 9 IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 10 IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 11 IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 12 IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 13 7. First of all, we may point out that the AO has not raised any ground before this Tribunal agitating that the ld.CIT(A) has admitted and considered additional evidence or submissions of the assessee in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Even on careful perusal of the copies of the submissions submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings available at pages 117 to 168, it is clearly discernible that the assessee has filed all the relevant documentary evidence explaining the transactions recorded in BS-1 to BS-3 and the same were reiterated by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) by way of written submissions dated 14.03.2018, 24.07.2017 and 02.11.2017 as has been reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in the first appellate order, therefore, we decline to accept the contentions of the ld.CIT-DR that the ld.CIT(A) has admitted and considered explanation, submissions and documentary evidence of the assessee which was not before the AO, in violation of rule 46A of the IT Rules. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 14 8. So far as the merits are concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has considered the addition made by the AO on account of unrecorded sales, cash receipts and udhari by noting that in absence of any factual finding or any incriminating evidence either in assessment proceedings or in remand report proceedings, it can be safely held that the addition has been made by the AO on sheer guess work, assumption and presumption basis. The assessee has discharged its initial onus by filing a detailed explanation and onus was shifted on the shoulders of the AO to discredit the claim of the assessee with supportive evidence and factual finding on the ground which are completely missing in the instant case. The ld.CIT(A) also noted that all material was available before the AO which was given to him during appellate proceedings and proper verification should have been made by the AO before arriving any conclusion, but, the AO did not discharge the onus lay on him to establish the allegations made by him against the assessee. The contention of the ld. AR are two-fold viz., that the amount of sale shown in the regular books of account of the assessee was higher than what was actually recorded in the sales register for AY 2012-13, the sales register was found properly maintained till the date of search. The IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 15 sales, as per sales register which was considered as alleged unrecorded sales, but, the same was duly verifiable from the sales bills and also from the books of account of the assessee which was also in possession of the AO as these were seized during the course of search proceedings. The second contention of the ld. AR is that the AO has added the entire amount of alleged unrecorded sales to the total income of the assessee even when the same was properly disclosed and duly incorporated in the regular books of account and shown in the final P&L and balance sheet of the assessee, then, merely on the basis of sales register even when the sales register was manually maintained by the assessee for controlling point of view, then, the taxability of gross amount of sales in the place of net profit element cannot be held as sustainable. The ld.CIT-DR could not show us any observations of the AO to controvert the contention of the assessee that the sales disclosed by the assessee in the regular books of account, P&L was higher than what was actually recorded in the sales register and the same was duly verifiable from the sales bills and from books of account which were in the possession of the AO as seized material. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 16 9. On careful perusal of the basis taken by the AO for making addition and the reasons recorded by the ld.CIT(A) for deleting the addition, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the ld. First appellate authority that the AO, during the course of appellate proceedings, through remand report, was required to verify the sales mentioned in the books of account and sales register BS-1 to BS-3 and he did not find any discrepancy in the documentary evidences filed during the appellate proceedings and the AO has nothing to bring on record which could prove that the sales recorded in the sales register i.e., BS-1 to BS-3 does not match with the sales recorded in the books of account. In such a situation and after perusing the remand report and findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A), we observe that the AO has nothing on record which could prove that the cash received and sales on credit was not in lieu of sales recorded in BS-1 to BS-3 and neither during the assessment proceedings nor in the remand report the AO failed to make factual verification and reconciliation of the seized material BS1- to BS-3 and regular books of account and also failed to bring any material on record to dislodge the contentions of the assessee IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 17 in this regard that all sales found recorded in the books of account is recorded in BS-1 to BS-3. 10. In view of the foregoing, we take respectful cognizance of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) wherein it was held that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to the tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Their lordships, speaking for apex court of India in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. Vs. CIT (supra), held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of evidence. 11. In the present case, as we have noted above, the AO alleged that the sales recorded in BS-1 to BS-3 was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee, but, the assessee successfully demonstrated that the same was recorded in the books of account as the assessee can reconcile with the sales register and P&L account of the assessee and even in the remand report, the AO could bring any adverse positive material against the assessee. The IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 18 onus of proof is on the person who makes any allegation and not on the person who has to defend. In the present case, the AO has failed to prove the allegation made in the assessment order even during the remand proceedings. Per contra, in the present case, the assessee has discharged its onus with sufficient and plausible evidences on record, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO on the allegation of unrecorded sales discernible from BS-1 to BS-3. Accordingly, ground No.1 of Revenue for AY 2011-12 is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 of the Revenue: Apropos ground No.2, the ld.CIT-DR, supporting the action of the AO, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded cash receipts amounting to Rs.26,65,146/- made by the AO in respect of unexplained entries appearing on seized BS and LPS. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that in para 11.8, the AO rightly concluded that the assessee has undertaken some transactions against which the unexplained entries were appearing in the seized documents BS and LPS and he was right in making addition in this regard. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 19 relief to the assessee without any basis, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 13. Replying to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the amount of cash as added to the total income of the assessee relates to the amount as due from the customers and later on received by the assessee company. The ld. AR further explained that the amount so received was again added by the AO to the total income of the assessee on account of unaccounted cash receipts without any basis. The ld. AR submitted that when gross amount of sales, as per sales register, was recorded by the assessee in its books of account, then, there was no reason for the AO to again adding the same amount as received from customer in cash which was outstanding against the credit sales. The ld. AR also submitted that when the assessee has recorded the entire amount of sales including cash and credit sales in its books of account, then, the amount due from the customer of credit sales was shown as receivable and later on it was received cannot be treated as income of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that in view of the above IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 20 factual position, the AO was not justified in making the addition and the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the same. 14. The ld.CIT-DR, on being asked by the bench, could not controvert the factual matrix of the issue as stated by the ld. AR. In this situation, when the BS and LPS show the amounts due to the customers against credit sales, then, on receipt of such amount from the customers, the same cannot be treated as unexplained entries appearing in the seized BS and LPS when the amount shown in BS-1 to BS-3 was shown by the assessee in the sales register which was showing higher figure of sales and the same was also included and recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) in this regard and we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue is also dismissed. Ground No.3 of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 . 15. Apropos ground No.3, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition on account of IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 21 unrecorded udhaari amounting to Rs.46,46,889/- made by the AO in respect of unexplained entries appearing in seized BS and LPS. Further drawing our attention to relevant part of assessment order, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that from the seized documents the AO, in para 11.8(ii) noted that seized books BS4 and BS7 were udhaari books having total udhaari of Rs.46,46,889/- out of which cash received was Rs.11,61,872/- and balance to be recovered was Rs.34,98,117/-. Therefore, the AO was right in making addition in this regard. The ld.CIT-DR pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any justified reason, therefore, the impugned first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring the order of the AO. 16. Replying to the above, the ld. AR drew our attention to relevant paras of the first appellate order and submitted that the AO added the amount on the basis of BS4 and BS7 and summary was also prepared by the assessee showing the period related to the entries. The ld. AR submitted that the amount of udhaari mentioned in the register found and seized during the course of search BS4 and BS7 was related to the sales as shown by the IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 22 assessee in its books of account and as has been explained by the assessee that the sales register as found during the course of search contained all the information such as bill No., description of material, weight, bill amount, balance outstanding and name of customer, then the amount so added by the AO as due from customer on account of sale of jewellery. 16.1 The ld. AR submitted that the jewellery sold either on cash or credit was duly incorporated in the books of account including sales register and P&L A/c and, therefore, the amount as due from the customers cannot be treated as unrecorded udhaari for making addition in the hands of the assessee and such addition would certainly amount to double addition on the one hand. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the amount of sales including cash and credit as shown by the assessee in the sales register was duly included in the regular books of account and P&L account, hence, the AO was not right in adding the same amount due from the customers on account of credit sales. The ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the baseless addition, therefore, the IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 23 ground No.3 of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 may kindly be dismissed. 17. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we note that in the earlier part of this order, we have dismissed ground No.1 of the Revenue by holding that the sales recorded and shown from BS1 to BS3 was recorded in the books of account of the assessee and shown in the balance sheet. Now, the AO further proceeded to make addition on account of unrecorded udhaari on the strength of BS4 and BS7. When it has been found that the assessee has recorded all sales either cash or credit in its regular books of account which was tallied with the sales register the AO was not justified and correct in making an addition on account of credit sales by the assessee by alleging the same as unrecorded. We are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld.CIT(A) in this regard that when the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the assessee has shown all kinds of sales in the regular books of account and P&L account, then, the part amount of credit sales received by the assessee against said udhari cannot be added to the taxable income of the assessee as the same would tantamount to IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 24 double taxation. Therefore, we uphold the findings arrived at by the ld.CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground No.3 of the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No.4 of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 . 18. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition on account of unaccounted investment in the building construction of the shop premises of Rs.17,45,681/- made by the AO on the basis of value adopted by the DVO. The ld.CIT-DR submitted that the AO successfully brought on record that the valuation report dated 21.01.2014 in respect of shop No.147 and 148, Chandni Chowk Ratlam to the extent of cost of shop and the AO rightly made addition of Rs.17,45,681/- to the total income of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the valuation report itself was based on the information provided by the assessee, therefore, the AO was right in making addition of difference between construction cost shown by the assessee and value adopted by the valuation officer as unaccounted investment of the assessee in the building construction of shop premises. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 25 19. Replying to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated ground No.5 of the assessee in para 4.2 to 4.8 of the first appellate order and rightly concluded that the DVO has not measured and adopted correct constructed area which was clearly evident from the letter of DVO dated 26.03.2014 which was filed in reply to objection letter filed by the assessee dated 28.02.2014. The ld. AR submitted that actual constructed area was taken as 444.90 sq. Mtrs after allowing a margin of 35% as per order of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Golden Realties. Therefore, the addition was rightly deleted by the ld.CIT(A). 20. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions and on vigilant perusal of the relevant paras 4.2 to 4.2.8 of the first appellate order, we observe that the letter of the DVO dated 26.03.2014 clearly reveals that the DVO has not measured and adopted the correct construction area which was actually 444.90 sq. Mtrs. The ld.CIT(A), after allowing a margin of 35%, viz., 25% on account of difference in CPWD and PWD rates and 10% for self supervision by the assessee during construction period, following the order of the coordinate Bench of the ITAT Indore Bench in the IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 26 case of Golden Realties (supra), rightly held that no addition is called for in this regard. Therefore, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the Revenue is also dismissed. Revenue’s Appeal No.IT(SS)A No.2/Ind/2022 (AY:2012-13) 21. In the beginning of the arguments, the ld. Representatives of both the sides agreed that the facts and circumstances of AY 2011- 12 and 2012-13 are identical pertaining to grounds No.1 and 2 of the Revenue for both the years, therefore, our findings recorded for AY 2011-12 would apply mutatis mutandis to the grounds No.1 and 2 of the Revenue for AY 2012-13. Consequently, grounds No.1 and 2 of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 are also dismissed in view of our findings recorded for Grounds No.1 and 2 of the Revenue in the earlier part of this order (supra) for AY 2011-12. 22. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 10.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:10 th February, 2023. IT(SS)A Nos.1 & 2/Ind/2022 27 NV/-/dk Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR // By Order // Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Indore Date 1. Draft dictated on 09.02.2023 2. Draft placed before the author 09.02.2023 3. Draft placed before the other Member .02.2023 4. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS .02.2023 5. Order uploaded on .02.2023 6. File sent to the Bench Clerk .02.2023 7. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date of dispatch of Order.