Tribunal upholds tax order, denies relief under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Appellant's appeals dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the appellant, upholding the orders passed under section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act. It confirmed the application of Article 24 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement to limit relief to the amount actually remitted to Singapore. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims and that the tax liability was correctly determined by the Assessing Officer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals against orders passed under section 172 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Article 8 and Article 24 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore.
3. Determination of tax liability under section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals:
The primary issue was whether appeals against orders passed under section 172 of the Income Tax Act are maintainable before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appellant argued that there is no provision for filing an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. The respondent countered that the appellant could question the order under section 172(4) through section 172(7) and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals against orders under section 172. The Tribunal, however, referred to a precedent from the case of MSC Agency (India) (P) Ltd., which established that such appeals are maintainable. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals are maintainable and dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue.

2. Applicability of Article 8 and Article 24 of DTAA:
The appellant contested the tax liability by invoking Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA, which states that profits derived from the operation of ships in international traffic shall be taxable only in the state of residence, i.e., Singapore. The Assessing Officer, however, applied Article 24 of the DTAA, which limits relief to the amount remitted to or received in the other contracting state. The Tribunal examined the interplay between Article 8 and Article 24 and concluded that while Article 8 governs the taxation of profits, Article 24 limits the relief to the amount actually remitted or received in Singapore. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the entire freight amount was remitted to Singapore, and therefore, only the amount actually remitted was eligible for relief under the DTAA.

3. Determination of Tax Liability under Section 172(4):
The Tribunal reviewed the assessment under section 172(4), which allows for summary assessment of tax on freight paid to non-resident ship owners or charterers. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had applied the provisions of section 172 correctly and that the proceedings under section 172(4) are summary in nature. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in A.S. Glittre, which held that section 172(4) proceedings are summary and that the assessee has a right under section 172(7) to opt for a regular assessment. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not exercised this right and therefore could not challenge the applicability of Article 24 at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the appellant, upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 172(4) and confirming the application of Article 24 of the DTAA to limit the relief to the amount actually remitted to Singapore. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 172 and the DTAA were correctly applied, and the appellant's arguments did not warrant any modification of the tax liability determined by the Assessing Officer.

---