A clerical error in mentioning the assessment year in a timely filed appeal constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Furthermore, societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act are eligible for deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

O R D E R

1. Balaji Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha (the assessee/appellant) filed appeal in ITA No 2247/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2015–16 against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (the learned CIT – A). The appeal concerns the dismissal of the assessee's challenge to the assessment order issued under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by The Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Hospet (the learned AO) on December 20, 2019. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal at the outset because it was submitted over four years late and this delay was not considered to be for a ‘sufficient cause’. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us.

2. The assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal by refusing to condone the delay. Additionally, it is argued that the deduction of ₹ 1,007,008 claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was improperly denied on the grounds that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P, as it is registered under a different Act rather than the Co-operative Societies Act.

3. The main issue is that the CIT (A) did not accept the four-year delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, the appeal submitted to us was also filed late by eight days.

4. The assessee received the CIT(A) order on 9 August 2025 and filed an appeal on 8 October 2025, missing the deadline of 30 September 2025. The delay was due to the tax auditor's workload related to income tax filings, which extended until 15 September 2025. Afterwards, the auditor contacted the lawyer, who promptly filed the appeal. The assessee requests condonation of the 8-day delay, citing it as bona fide.

5. The learned departmental representative also did not object to the same.

6. Considering the circumstances outlined above and the minimal nature of the delay, which occurred due to bona fide reasons, the appeal submitted by the assessee is hereby admitted, with the eight-day delay duly condoned.

7. The ld. CIT(A) did not excuse the four-year delay in filing the appeal. The assessing officer’s order was served on 20 December 2019, but the assessee filed the appeal only on 4 June 2024, resulting in a clear delay of about four years.

8. The assessee delayed due to initially filing the appeal electronically on 14 January 2020 with the incorrect assessment year—2017–18 instead of 2015–16. This error led to a timely appeal being submitted for the wrong year. The assessee stated that the incorrect assessment year was discovered upon receiving a notice on 22 May 2024, which revealed that no appeal had been filed for assessment year 2017–18, although notices were received, while an appeal was pending for assessment year 2015–16. Upon reviewing Form No. 35, the assessee realized that the assessment year had been erroneously entered as 2017–18 instead of 2015–16. Immediately after identifying this error, the assessee filed a corrective appeal on 4 June 2024, amending the assessment year from 2017–18 to 2015–16. The delay was attributed to the assessee mistakenly listing the wrong assessment year. The learned CIT(A) provided another hearing, requiring the assessee to justify the late appeal. On 24 July 2025, the assessee reiterated that the error caused the delay. However, the CIT(A) found the delay excessive, noting that the assessee should have realized the mistake upon receiving the first notice on 22 January 2021. Since the assessee did not address this point, the ld. CIT(A) refused