MOGLYKIDS FOUNDATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/199/2025HC DelhiDLHC01099698202409 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue's contention that no oral hearing was required was unpersuasive. The Court noted that the notices issued by the Revenue expressly indicated that hearings were fixed for the specified dates and times. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)) to consider the petitioner's application afresh. The respondent was directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before passing a fresh order. The petition was allowed in these terms. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

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 request for grant of approval under Section 80G(5)(iv) – Item B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cancelled the provisional approval granted for Assessment Years (AY) 2024-25 to AY 2026-27. The petitioner contended that they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard despite appearing for scheduled hearings on three occasions. The Revenue argued that no oral hearing was required as the petitioner had not explicitly sought one.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv) – Item B without affording an opportunity of a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 80G(5)(iv) and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard despite appearing for scheduled hearings on three occasions. - Notices issued by the Revenue fixed specific hearing dates and times. Revenue's Contentions: - No oral hearing was required as the petitioner had not sought an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iv),Section 80G(5)(ii)(b)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 199/2025 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. 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 accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent under Clause (ii)(b)(B) of the second proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) whereby the petitioner’s request for grant of approval under Section 80G(5)(iv) – Item B is rejected and the provisional approval granted in 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 19:22:50

terms of an order dated 18.03.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25 to AY 2026-27 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, the 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 an 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 19:22:50

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iv)

All 127 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →