IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2024-25 M/s. Natya Niketan School of Bharatanatyam Trust, The Commissioner No. 582 Layabhinaya, of Income Tax

16^th Main, 10^th Cross, (Exemptions), Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore.

Bengaluru – 560 070. Vs.

PAN: AADTN2028E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CA Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-

Revenue by :

DR Date of Hearing : 28-01-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025

ORDER

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the rejection of

80G95)application filed by the assessee in form 10AB dated 23/04/2024 observing that the activity of the assessee is commercial in nature by the Ld.CIT(E) and noted that the assessee was mandated to submit the necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and fulfilment of all the conditions laid down in clause 1 to 5 of section 80G. Accordingly, the approval u/s. 80G of the IT Act was rejected and approval cancelled vide order dated 29/10/2024.

2. The Ld.Counsel has filed the synopsis which is as under:

3. In addition to the above, the assessee has filed paper book containing pages 1 to 196 including the case law and submitted that once the registration u/s. 12AB has been granted to the assessee, the approval u/s. 80G(5) is academic. If the assessee is found that the activity is not in the nature of commercial activity and is beyond the purview of the object clause. 4. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the trust is charging very few fee from the students who are coming for learning of Bharatanatyam which cannot be considered as a commercial activity. The students are acquiring knowledge about the form of such an art and thereby enhance the cultural heritage of India as a whole. Bharatanatyam has been often referred to as the national dance of India and by embarking upon the activity of providing education to the students in the dance form of Bharatanatyam, the assessee is involved in an indubitable charitable activity. The ld. CIT(E) provided only one hearing i.e. 26.08.2024 Therefore, he requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, and undertook that the assessee will be able to prove that the activity of the assessee trust is not in commercial in nature and engaged in the charitable activity. The audited statement prove that there is no commercial activity and the founder members are not getting any benefit from this institution. In support, he relied on the following judgments:

a. Decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Green Acres Educational Trust vs. DCIT reported in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 347 b. Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT(E) vs. Shree Tapeshwar Hanumaji Bajrang Charity Trust reported in [2020] 122 taxmann.com 98 c. Decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Huhtamaki Foundation vs. CIT(E) reported in [2024] 163 taxmann.com 174 d. Decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Olive Development Foundation vs. CIT(E) reported in [2023] 155 taxmann.com 605 e. Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT(E) vs.

Embassy Charitable Trust reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 449 f. Decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. JMJ Education Society reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 315

5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and noted that the activities are commercial in nature as observed by the Ld.CIT(E) and therefore the approval u/s. 80G(v) should not be granted to the assessee.

6. Considering the rival submissions, we noted that the assessee has received fees from students which is denoted as a contribution and incurred expenditure which is clear from the receipt and payment account quoted by the ld.CIT(E) in his order. The assessee has also not distributed any dividend and has organised a programme as per synopsis of assessee,