The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad V. Samarpan Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 11/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3459 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 132; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 143(1); 143(2); 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(4), Ahmedabad Vs Samarpan Products Pvt. Ltd., 302, N R House, Opp. AIR India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN : AAICS 8521 P / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR Assessee by : None /Date of Hearing : 18/07/2022 /Date of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A) in short]” dated 27.10.2017 and the grounds raised by the Revenue therein read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts brought about by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order as well as the objections raised in the remand report and has admitted the additional evidences. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in not appreciating the provisions of section 153A of the I.T. Act which requires the total income to be brought under tax without any restriction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in holding that such assessment or re-assessment u/s 153A is to be restricted only to the incriminating materials found during the search. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.1,48,18,285/-. IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 2 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.2,47,088/-. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition on account of disallowance u/s 32oftheActofRs.1,60,678/-.” 2. At the time of hearing fixed in this case, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. There was a similar non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued on the earlier occasions fixing the appeal for hearing from time to time before the Tribunal. This appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, being disposed of ex parte qua the respondent-assessee after hearing the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the relevant material available on record. 3. As submitted by the learned DR, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue in this appeal are general in nature which do not call for specific adjudication. 4. As regards the issue involved in Ground No.4 relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.1,48,18,285/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted cash credit, the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of multi-layered marketing of consumer goods. A search action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” in short] was conducted in the cases belonging to India Green Reality on 15.03.2013 including the case of the assessee. Subsequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 28.10.2013 requiring the assessee to file its return of income inter alia for the year under consideration. There was, however, no response on the part of the assessee to the said notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Act as well as the subsequent notices issued by him under Section 142(1) of the Act. The IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 3 Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment on the basis of material available on record. In this regard, he noted that the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the assessee-company for period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 was found and seized during the course of search from the residential premises of its Director. It was further noted by the Assessing Officer that the figures reflected in the said balance-sheet and P&L account were substantially different than the figures reflected in the balance-sheet and P&L account filed by the assessee along with the Audit Report. In the balance-sheet found and seized during the course of search, total liabilities on account of share capital, unsecured loans and current liabilities aggregating to Rs.1,48,18,285/- were shown by the assessee and since the assessee failed to support and substantiate the said liabilities inspite of sufficient opportunity afforded to him, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credit and addition of Rs.1,48,18,285/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act in the assessment completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act vide an order dated 17.02.2015. He also found that net profit shown by the assessee in the P&L account found during the course of search was Rs.20,33,543/- as against the net loss of Rs.29,93,748/- shown in the P&L account filed along with Audit Report. He accordingly rejected the claim of the assessee for loss and brought to tax the net profit of Rs.20,33,543/- in the hands of the assessee in the assessment completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 4.1 Both the additions of Rs.1,48,18,285/- and Rs.20,33,543/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of balance-sheet and P&L account found and seized during the course of search were challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), written submission was filed by the assessee along with certain details and documents to support and substantiate its case on these two issues. The same were forwarded by the learned CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer and after IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 4 taking into consideration the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer as well as the other material available on record, the learned CIT(A) decided these two issues vide paragraph No. 5.5 of his impugned order as under:- “5.5 I have carefully considered assessment order, remand report and submissions field by appellant. It is observed that Assessing Officer has relied upon documents (two pages page nos 30 and 31 of Annexure A-5) found during the course of search which includes profit & loss account and Balance Sheet for year under consideration which is compared with Audited Annual Accounts submitted by the Appellant while filing original Return of Income. These documents were found from the premises of Director of Appellant Company hence the onus is on Appellant to prove that that such entries reflected in these documents do not pertain to it. It is observed that both the Balance Sheets i.e. one found during the search and the other filed along with the return show same amount of share capital, opening profit & loss account which means that such documents pertain to Appellant Company. Moreover, the name of the appellant as well as the period to which it belongs have clearly been written on these documents. The documents are complete in all respects including the final total of the balance sheet and profit and loss account. Further, onus is also on Appellant to explain the difference in two sets of account and argument of Appellant that one being unaudited cannot be relied upon is not acceptable as the presumption is that it is the appellant who has to explain the documents found during the course of the search at his premises. Since the appellant has failed to explain the difference or reconciliation by corroborating evidences in these two sets of documents, the presumption is that the documents found at the premises of the director needs to be taken into account and to be treated as correct in the absence of plausible explanation. The argument of the appellant that one is unaudited balance sheet and profit and loss account would not help the case of the appellant at all. It is a settled position of law that any document found during the course of search at any premises, would be presumed to be a correct document and belongs to that person until and unless proved otherwise. Since the director of the company has failed to discharge the onus cast on him by the statute, the presumption would hold good and the provisions of the evidence Act would go against him. It is observed that unaudited Balance Sheet found during the course of search shows closing stock of Rs. 24.37 lac and debtors of 99.53 lacs whereas audited accounts show such balance as NIL and Rs.31,45,480 which means Appellant has not recognised entire sale value or purchase transaction while finalising the Audited Annual Accounts. This fact is further corroborated from unaudited profit & loss account found during the course of search which shows that Appellant has made sales of Rs.65.58 lacs and shown members' receipt of Rs. 1.65 crore, aggregating to total turnover of Rs.221.36 lacs whereas in audited accounts turnover is shown at Rs.38.54 lacs and other income of Rs.50.13 lacs aggregating to total income of Rs.88.66 lacs. Therefore, there is a difference of Rs.132.70 lacs in IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 5 turnover as per audited accounts and documents found and seized during the course of search. As stated herein above, Audited Annual Accounts show balance of debtors and closing stock of Rs.31.45 lacs only whereas in the documents found during the course of search shows such balance at Rs.123.09 lacs resulting in a difference of Rs.92.45 lacs. As explained earlier, this difference is arisen mainly on account of difference in turnover as discussed above. Likewise, it is also seen that the total expenses including purchases as per the documents seized comes to Rs. 2,03,89,026 whereas the same comes to Rs. 84,07,402, therefore the difference in these two figures comes to Rs. 1,19,81,624. Accordingly, it is seen that the appellant has suppressed its turnover to show less profit and suppressing the sales figure and consequently the figures of debtors and closing stock. On the other hand, the appellant has also suppressed the figures of purchases and other expenses being incurred to match the two to show loss in the audited accounts instead of profit of Rs.20,33,543/- as being shown in these documents seized. Considering these facts as discussed above, the profit shown in Audited Annual Accounts cannot be accepted as the same does not reflect true and correct profit. Accordingly, it is held that AO was correct in holding that the appellant's net profit should be Rs.20,33,543/ - being profit shown in the seized documents instead of loss of Rs. 29,93,748/-. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO on this account is upheld and the ground taken by the appellant is dismissed. It is also observed that Assessing Officer has made addition of unexplained credits for Rs. 1,48,18,285 being total liability/assets shown in the documents found during the course of search. It is observed that in Audited Annual Accounts, Appellant has shown total assets/liabilities at Rs. 1,49,51,584 which is almost the same amount found in seized documents. Even in view of the addition being confirmed above, wherein the profit of the appellant has been confirmed at Rs. Rs.20,33,543/ also proves that the difference in the balance sheet is on account of suppression of sales/receipts as discussed in the earlier part of this order. Therefore, since the addition on account of net profit has already been confirmed by me in the earlier part, the difference in the figures of the balance sheet is the result of these manipulations only which are discussed at length. The total difference in profit comes to Rs. 50,27,289/- (being loss of Rs.29,93,748 being converted in net profit of Rs.20,33,543/-). The difference in the balance sheet is mainly on account of these figures which have been manipulated by the appellant to suppress its receipt/income and consequent profit. In any case, the approach of the AO to add the whole liabilities without discussing the individual items of the balance sheet is not the correct approach as it is. In view of such facts, it is held that the action of the AO in adding the entire amount of the liability side as reflected in the seized documents cannot be sustained in view of the discussion above. Once the difference in the profit has been confirmed, the separate addition for the difference in the figures of the balance sheet IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 6 is not required and does not call for separate addition as the same are computed on the basis of figures of the Profit and loss account. It has already been discussed in the earlier part of this order that the major differences are arising on account of closing stock, sundry debtors and current liabilities (purchases and expenses) which are on account of non-recording of proper sales and purchase transactions in Audited Annual Accounts for which separate addition of Rs. 50,27,289/- (being loss of Rs.29,93,748 converted in net profit of Rs. Rs.20,33,543/-) is already made. Considering these facts, addition made by AO for unexplained credits for Rs.1,48,18,285 is not sustained and addition of Rs. 20,33,543 is confirmed. Accordingly, the appellant succeeds on ground No. 2 which is allowed and Ground No. 3 of the appellant is dismissed. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) thus confirmed the addition of Rs.20,33,543/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of P&L account found and seized during the course of search, but deleted the addition of Rs.1,48,18,285/- made by him on the basis of balance-sheet found during the course of search. 4.3 We have heard the arguments of learned DR and perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the profit reflected in the P&L account found during the course of search was Rs.20,33,543/- as against the loss of Rs.29,93,748/- shown by the assessee in the P&L account filed along with the Audit Report. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the assessee, the Assessing Officer ignored the loss claimed by the assessee and treated the amount of Rs.20,33,543/- reflected as profit in the P&L account found during the course of search as the income of the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the said addition, but deleted the addition of Rs.1,48,18,285/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the liabilities appearing in the balance- sheet found during the course of search as unexplained cash credit. The difference in liabilities as reflected in the balance-sheet found during the course of search to the extent of Rs.92.45 lakhs was on account of higher turnover reflected in the P&L account found during the course of search which was taken by the Assessing Officer as the basis for making addition of Rs.50,27,289/- (being loss of Rs.29,93,748 converted in net profit of Rs.20,33,543/-) which was already confirmed by the learned CIT(A). He also noted that the total expenses shown by IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 7 the assessee in the P&L account found during the course of search including purchases were more than the P&L account filed along with the Audit Report by Rs.1,19,81,624/- and the increase in the liabilities as reflected in the balance-sheet found during the course of search was on this account. He also found that the assessee in the balance-sheet filed along with the Audit Report had shown total liabilities at Rs.1,49,51,584/- which were almost the same as reflected in the balance-sheet found during the course of search and if there were any difference or anomalies, the same were due to the difference in the figures of turnover and other expenses including purchases as reflected in the P&L account found during the course of search which were more than the P&L account filed by the assessee along with Audit Report. The learned CIT(A) also held that the approach of the Assessing Officer in treating the entire liabilities as unexplained cash credit without discussing the individual items as reflected in the balance-sheet was not correct. He accordingly deleted the addition of Rs.1,48,18,285/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the cogent and specific finding of facts recorded in his impugned order. At the time of hearing before us, the learned DR has not been able to rebut or controvert this finding of facts recorded by the learned CIT(A) and keeping in view the same as well as all the facts of the case, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue; the same is, therefore, upheld and Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. As regards the issue involved in Ground No.5 relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.2,47,088/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is observed that godown rent of Rs.1,82,272/- and web-design charges of Rs.64,816/- were paid by the assessee during the year under consideration. Since the assessee failed to furnish any details to show that the tax at source was deducted from the said payments, the Assessing Officer invoked Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made disallowance of Rs.2,47,088/-. Similarly, the claim of the assessee for depreciation IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 8 of Rs.1,60,678/- was disallowed by him as the assessee failed to furnish the details of fixed assets on which the said depreciation was claimed and also the use of the said assets for the purpose of its business. 5.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as the disallowance on account of depreciation for the following reasons given in paragraph No.6.2 of his impugned order:- “6.2 I have carefully considered assessment order, remand report and submission field by appellant. It is observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, AO has not accepted the book result shown by Appellant and has considered net profit as reflected in unaudited accounts found during the course of search as real profit of Appellant. It is observed that AO has made disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and depreciation as per amount mentioned in Audited Annual Accounts which itself is not considered by AO as correct accounts and said action is already upheld by undersigned in preceding paras hence separate addition for above two items cannot be made. Even otherwise, it is observed that both the expenditure are recorded in profit & loss account and Return of income was already filed on and time limit for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is already expired on the date of search i.e. 15 th March, 2013. It has been held by various Courts that while passing assessment orders u/s 153C/I53A wherein time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is expired on the date of search, additions cannot be made which are not based upon any incriminating material found during the course of search. Reliance is placed on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V/s Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd 81 taxmann.com 292 wherein it is held as under: "18. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that any incriminating material in respect of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153 A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.11,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153 A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 9 made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, however, it is on the basis of some material collected by the Assessing Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153 A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, m relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section I53A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen "and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to stale that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed." Further, Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT has also taken a similar view in the case of Vijay Kumar D Agarwal V/s DCIT 82 taxmann.com 367 wherein no assessment u/s 143(3) was made prior to date of search and only time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was expired on the date of search. The ITAT has held as under: "20. In the present case, the assessment had been completed under summary scheme under section 143(1) and time limit for issue of notice under section 143(2) had expired on the date of search. Therefore, there was no assessment pending in this case and in such a case there was no question of abatement. IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 10 Therefore, addition could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during search. The gift deeds and the copies of return of income of the donors that were found at the time of search could not be considered to be incriminating material for the purpose of addition in view of the fact that these very documents were the basis of the gifts that were considered by the assessee while crediting the capital account. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that these assessments framed U/S.153A need to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. Since the legal issue has been decided in favor of the assessee, we are of the view that the other grounds raised on the merits of addition have been rendered academic and requires nu adjudication. 22. Thus, the appeal of the assessee IT(SS)A No.153/Ahd/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed." Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs Continental warehousing corporation limited 58 Taxman.com 78, CIT VS Murli Agro Products Limited 49 Taxman.com 172.and Delhi High court in the case of RRJ Securities Limited 62 Taxman.com 391. It is also observed that on similar issues CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad, has also decided issue in favour of Assessee in following cases: (i) CIT (Appeals)-11 in the case of Taraben Baldevbhai Patel for A.Y. 2006- 07 vide order dated 7th April, 2014 (ii) CIT (Appeals)-12 in the case of Anishaben R. Agrawal for A.Y. 2008- 09 to 2010-11 vide order dated 16th August, 2017 (iii) CIT (Appeals)-12 in the case of Kalpen K. Doshi for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 vide order dated 28th February, 2017 Relying upon decisions referred to above and on facts of case, additions made by AO is deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” 5.2 We have heard the arguments of learned DR and also perused the relevant material available on record. As noted by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was an unabated assessment; and, therefore, the scope of the same was confined to assess the income of the assessee on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. As found by the learned CIT(A), the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as IT(SS)A No. 11/Ahd/2018 DCIT Vs. Samarpan Products Pvt Ltd AY : 2007-08 11 well as the disallowance on account of depreciation was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position, we find ourselves in agreement with the learned CIT(A) that these two additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of the assessment completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act as held by various judicial pronouncements referred to and relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in his impugned order. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on these issues and upholding the same, we dismiss the Ground Nos. 5 & 6 of the Revenue’s appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22 nd July, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 22/07/2022 *Bt /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ! / The Appellant 2. "# ! / The Respondent. 3. $%$&' # # ( / Concerned CIT 4. # # ( ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. + , # &' , # # &' /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. , ./ 0 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह # $ज (Asstt. Registrar) # # &' ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation- 19.07.2022.........seven pages dictation pad attached ...... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...19.07.2022 ............ Other member....20.07.2022.......... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ......20.07.2022............ 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement ...22.07.2022.... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk...22.07.2022......... 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..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................