M/s. Clarion India, Baroda v. The ACIT., Circle-2,, Baroda

ITA 1214/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 121420514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AACFC2662C
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1214/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Clarion India, Baroda
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-2,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 21-12-2008
Date Of Final Hearing 15-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-11-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 22-03-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1214 & 4531 / AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY) M/S. CLARION INDIA RACE COURSE VADODARA-390007 VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2 BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AACFC2662C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI M J SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VINOD TANWANI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 15.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.12.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA AM:- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) II BAROD A DATED 24.01.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND DATED 08.10.200 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 I.E. I.T.A.NO. 1214/AHD/2007: 2. THE GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A)-II BARODA HAS ERRED IN UPH OLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80 HHC AMOU NTING TO RS.35 S3 328/- CONSIDERING NETTING OF INTEREST RECE IVED ON FD WITH- BANK. I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDU CTION U/S 80HHC OF RS.35 93 326/- BUT IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROFIT FROM EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS IS NEGATIVE AND RS.21 67 712/- HAS BEEN DECLARED AS LO SS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED EXPORT INCENTIVE OF RS.1 03 93 738/- IN RESPECT OF DEPB BENEFIT BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEES EXPORT TU RNOVER IS MORE THAN RS.10 CRORES THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCR EASE IN THE BUSINESS PROFIT BY 90% OF DEPB RECEIPT AND HENCE ULTIMATE RESULT I S ALSO LOSS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 80HHC. LD. CIT(A) COMBINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOW THE A SSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ALTERNATIVE CLAIM WAS ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NETTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.13 29 937/- AND 90% OF NET IN COME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FORM BUSINESS PROFIT BUT SINCE THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT RELEVANT AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80HHC BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY EXPORT PROFIT. GROUND N .2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A)-II BARODA HAS ALSO ERRED I N UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO PERSONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1351 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 20 000/-.. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE TILL THE AS SESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 TO 2.1 OF HIS ORD ER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 3 2.1. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CONSULTANCY FEES OF RS.60 000/- AND SALARY OF RS.60 000/- WAS CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE SPOUSES OF TWO PARTNERS OF THE APPELLAN T FIRM. SINCE THE CLAIM WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED EITHER BY DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE OR ORAL EVIDENCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS EXTRACT ED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE : 'I HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I AM NOT INCLINED TO BE PERSUADED BY THE REASONS FOR ALLOWAB ILITY OF EXPENDITURE THAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROPAGATED THEREIN . IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT THE ISO CERTIFICATION WORK WAS AWARD ED TO ONE M/S. AMERICAN QUALITY ASSESSORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD FOR NOT ONLY GETTING M/S. CLARION INDIA THE ASSESSEE STAMPED AS AN ISO E NTITY BUT ALSO FOR CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS AND FOR THE P URPOSES OF SURVEILLANCE AUDIT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT MRS. ROMI G. MEHTA WHO WAS STATED TO HAVE ASSISTED CERTIFICATION CONSULTANTS FOR ISO PURPOSES WAS A MAJOR LINK FOR THE FIRM WITH THE CONCERNED CONSULTANT OF THE P URPOSES OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTION OF ISO CERTIFICATION. IT IS ALSO SURPRISING TO NOTE HERE THAT WHEREAS THE ACTUAL PERFORMERS OF TAS K FOR OBTAINING THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATION NAMELY M/S. AMERICAN QU ALITY ASSESSORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD WAS PAID A MEAGER SUM OF RS.24 444.50 MRS. ROMI G. MEHTA WAS PAD RS.5 000/- PER MONTH AMO UNTING RS.60 000/- IN A YEAR. THE EXACT ROLE MODEL OF MRS. ROMI G. MEHTA DOES NOT EMERGE AND IT APPEARS THAT SHE HAS N O OTHER RESPONSIBILITY TO CATER TO AS FAR AS THE BUSINESS A CTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. THEREFORE SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS FAR AS THE TECHNICAL UTILITY OF MRS. R OMI G. MEHTA TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED AND SINCE THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY ROMI G. MEHTA HA S NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED I HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEES TO ROMI G. MEHTA IS IN THE NATURE OF A GRATUITOUS PAYMENT DEFR AYED ONLY BY REASON OF HER BEING SPOUSE OF THE PARTNER OF THE AS SESSEE AND NOT IN REGARD TO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. ACCORDINGLY. I DIS ALLOW THE SUM OF RS.60 000/- PAID TO SMT. ROMI G. MEHTA AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. THE SAID AMOUNT IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SMT PALLAVIKA J. PATEL A PART FROM STATING THAT SHE IS A COMMERCIAL GRADUATE LOOKING AFTER REC EPTION AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRM NOTHING HAS BEE N BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE ME TO PROVE THAT LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 4 WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE A CALL ON THE SERVICES OF SMT . PALAVIKA J. PATEL NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ALSO TO P ROVE THAT THE SAID SMT PALLAVIKA PATEL WAS TRAINED IN BUSINESS A ND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO HER TOTALING IN THE SUM OF RS.60 000/- WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY HER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ABLE TO FUR NISH MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO PROVE ITS CASE FOR ADMISSIBI LITY OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IT WAS AN OPTION LEFT OPEN TO THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE LEGITIMACY OF EXPENDITURE OF R S.L 20 000/- CONCERNING BOTH THE INDIVIDUALS COULD BE ESTABLISHE D BY A FAIR APPRAISAL MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SERV ICES PURPORTEDLY RENDERED BY THESE INDIVIDUALS. SINCE TH E SAID OPTION WAS NOT EXERCISED DESPITE THE LIBERTY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INVO LVEMENT OF THESE LADY INDIVIDUALS IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE 1 HOLD THAT THE SAID PAYMENT IS GRATUITOUS PAYMENT DEFRAYED ONLY BY REAS ON OF THE SAID INDIVIDUAL BEING THE SPOUSE OF THE PARTNER OF THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I DISALLOW THE SUM OF RS.60 000/- PAID TO SMT. PALLAVIKA J. PATEL A DISCUSSED ABOVE THE SAID AMOU NT IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY U/S.271(L )(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME VIS-&-VIS THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.20 000/-. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSE E IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEAR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING REMUNERATION TO THE SAME LADIES AND HENCE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE A.O.S ORDER FOR LATER YEAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO LADIES AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE. I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 5 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING THE ABILITY AND TH E SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO LADIES. BEFORE US ALSO NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO D ISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THAT YEAR ON THIS ISSUE AND IT MAY BE THAT ATTENTION OF THE A.O. DID NOT GO TO THIS ISSUE IN THAT YEAR BUT IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS RES- JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE AND HE NCE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE LATER YEAR CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO LADIES IN THE PRESENT YEAR WE FEEL THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO REJECTED. 10. GROUNDS NOS. 4 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 IN I.T.A.NO. 1214/AHD/2007 IS DISMISSED IN THE T ERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN I.T.A.NO. 4531/AHD/2007. 13. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 14. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND IN THAT YEAR THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 9 ABOVE. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO LADIES AND HENCE IN THIS YEAR I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 6 ALSO NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 IS REJECTED. 15. REGARDING GROUND NO.3 & 4 WE FIND THAT THIS IS SUE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IN THE PRE SENT YEAR ALSO IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THER E IS LOSS FROM EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS OF RS.12 17 027/- AND THE BENEFIT DER IVED BY THE ASSESSES FROM EXPORT INCENTIVE OF RS.1 14 84 615/- IS WITH R EGARD TO DEPB BENEFIT BUT THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN EXCES S OF RS.10 CRORES AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY BENEFIT ON THIS ACCOUNT AND HENCE THERE IS LOSS FORM EXPORT AND HENCE THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS IN THIS YEAR ALSO. REGARDING THE NETTING O F INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT IT WILL BE OF ACADEMIC INTER EST ONLY BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HH C ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS FROM EXPORT WHICH IS MORE THAN INTEREST INCOME THE RE WILL BE NO IMPACT EVEN IF NETTING OF INTEREST IS ALLOWED AND HENCE G ROUNDS NO.3 & 4 ARE REJECTED. 16. IN GROUND NO.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.21 248/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSE S AND AS PER GROUND NO.6 THE ASSESSEE IS IN DISPUTE REGARDING DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.70 050/- OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. ON THESE TWO ISSUES LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ON PRES UMPTIVE BASIS AND HENCE NOT JUSTIFIED. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUSTERIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND THE ASSESSEE INCURR ED RS.2 87 484/- TOWARD TELEPHONE EXPENSE WHICH INCLUDES MOBILE PHONES ALSO . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE PARTNERS WERE HAVING THEIR SEPARATE TELEPHONES I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 7 AND MOBILE PHONES FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE. THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF THE EXPENSE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28 748/- A ND SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 500/- WAS ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.21 248/-. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FEEL THAT DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.5 IS ALSO REJECTED . 18. REGARDING GROUND NO.6 WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.3 92 130/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND ON VE RIFICATION OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS ITS IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S.75 050/- IS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE HOLD ARTICLES FROM M/S . SHOPPE. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATION IN THIS R EGARD AND IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS IS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BECAUSE DURING FESTIVE SEASON GIFTS AR E GIVEN TO ALL THE NEAR ONES IN BUSINESS CIRCLE AND HENCE IT IS BUSINESS E XPENDITURE. IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 8.3 OF HIS ORDER THAT ON PERUSAL OF BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN THAT THESE IT EMS ARE IN THE NATURE OF HOUSE HOLD ARTICLES AND WERE PURCHASED ON 20 TH OF JANUARY AND THEREFORE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE SAME WERE DISTRIBUTED DURING FESTIVE SEASON IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT 20 TH JANUARY ONWARDS THERE IS HARDLY ANY FESTIVE SEASON. IN SPITE OF THIS CLEAR FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT TH ESE ITEMS WERE GIFT ITEMS AND WERE IN FACT GIVEN TO BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND THEREFORE WE FEEL THAT IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSU E. GROUND NO.6 IS ALSO REJECTED. I.T.A.NO. 1214 4531 /AHD/2007 8 19. GROUND NO.7 IS REGARDING INTEREST U/S 234B & 23 4C AND IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. GROUND NO.8 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 20. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO DISMISSED. 21. IN THE COMBINED RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 22. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15/12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16/12.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 19/12 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 21/12 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.21/12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21/12/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..