MOGLYKIDS FOUNDATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/200/2025HC DelhiDLHC01099699202409 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is set aside. The Court found the Revenue's contention that no oral hearing was required to be unpersuasive, especially since the notices issued by the Revenue expressly mentioned that hearings were fixed. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental procedural requirement. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration of the petitioner's application after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The petition is allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Moglykids Foundation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). This order rejected the petitioner's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B and cancelled its provisional registration for Assessment Years 2023-24 to 2025-26. The petitioner contended that it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, despite appearing on three occasions when hearings were scheduled. The Revenue argued that no oral hearing was necessary as the petitioner had not requested one.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the respondent under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's application for registration and cancelling its provisional registration, is vitiated by a failure to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is bad in law as it was passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard. They appeared on three scheduled hearing dates but were not heard. The notices issued by the respondent explicitly fixed hearings. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that no oral hearing was required because the petitioner had not explicitly sought an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 200/2025 MOGLYKIDS FOUNDATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sidhartha Das with Mr Gajanand Kirudiwal and Ms Rubal Bansal Maini, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O 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 accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), whereby the petitioner’s request for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B is rejected and the provisional registration granted in terms of an order dated 14.03.2023 for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:22:53

Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 to AY 2025-26 is cancelled. The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 01.03.2024 fixing the hearing in respect of the aforementioned application on 18.03.2024 at 11.00 A.M. Similarly, hearings were fixed on two further occasions as well. It is contended that the petitioner had appeared on each of the three occasions but no hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that no oral hearing was required to be given to the petitioner as the petitioner had not sought any opportunity to be heard. We find the said contention to be unpersuasive, considering that the notice issued by the Revenue expressly noted 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 is remanded to the respondent for considering the petitioner’s application afresh after affording the petitioner opportunity to be heard. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application shall also stands closed. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 09, 2025/tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 19:22:53

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B)

All 110 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →