+ W.p.(C) 199/2025 Moglykids Foundation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption

$~68 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 199/2025MOGLYKIDS FOUNDATION.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Sidhartha Das with Mr GajanandKirudiwalandMsRubalBansalMaini, Advocates.MOGLYKIDS FOUNDATION.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Sidhartha Das with Mr GajanandKirudiwalandMsRubalBansalMaini, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Respondent Through:Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with MrShivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek,Advocates.Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek,Advocates. % CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R09.01.2025 CM APPL. 866/2025 1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 199/2025 and CM APPL. 865/2025 3.Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue acceptsnotice. 4.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated30.08.2024 passed by the respondent under Clause (ii)(b)(B) of the secondproviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act)whereby the petitioner’s request for grant of approval under Section80G(5)(iv) – Item B is rejected and the provisional approval granted in terms of an order dated 18.03.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25to AY 2026-27 is cancelled. The petitioner assails the impugned order on theground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be heard. Thepetitioner was issued a notice dated 01.03.2024 fixing the hearing in respectof the aforementioned application on 18.03.2024 at 11.00 A.M. Similarly,the hearings were fixed on two further occasions as well. It is contended thatthe petitioner had appeared on each of the three occasions but no hearingwas afforded to the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that no oralhearing was required to be given to the petitioner as the petitioner had notsought any opportunity to be heard. We find the said contention to beunpersuasive, considering that the notice issued by the Revenue expresslynoted that a hearing was fixed on the date and time specified in the notices.6.In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter isremanded to the respondent for considering the petitioner’s applicationafresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitionis allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shall also standsclosed. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ JANUARY 09, 2025/tr TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, JClick here to check corrigendum, if any