+ W.p.(C) 200/2025 Moglykids Foundation v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption

$~69 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 200/2025MOGLYKIDS 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 R%09.01.2025 CM APPL. 868/2025 1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 200/2025 and CM APPL. 867/2025 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 Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), whereby the petitioner’s requestfor grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B is rejected andthe provisional registration granted in terms of an order dated 14.03.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 to AY 2025-26 is cancelled. The petitionerassails the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was not affordedany opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was issued a notice dated01.03.2024 fixing the hearing in respect of the aforementioned applicationon 18.03.2024 at 11.00 A.M. Similarly, hearings were fixed on two furtheroccasions as well. It is contended that the petitioner had appeared on each ofthe three occasions but no hearing was 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 opportunity to be heard. The petition isallowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shall also stands closed. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ JANUARY 09, 2025/tr TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any