Maniula Chellur, C.J.

1. In all the above appeals since common questions of law are involved, they are heard and disposed of together. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals:

"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that appellants/assessees were not entitled to deduction of 10% of the aggregate average advances made by its rural branches under Section 36(l)(viia) of Income Tax Act?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the above cases, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that definition of rural branch in Explanation (ia) to Section 36(l)(viia) is applicable to Co-operative Banks?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the above cases, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that definition of the term banking company in Section 5(c) of Banking Regulation Act covers a Cooperative Bank, which is separately defined in Section 5(cci) of the said Act?"

2. All the above appeals are directed against th* order of the Appellate Tribunal. It is clear from substantial questions of law stated above what exactly is the dispute. Admittedly, appellants/assessees are Co-operative Banks having its registered offices at the addresses mentioned in the cause title and they have several branches spread all over the State of Kerala. What we understand from the contentions raised by appellants/assessees is that though sub-clause (a) of clause (viia) to Section 36(1) of Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') particularly refers to Co-operative Bank, but under explanation, while defining rural branch it does not refer to co-operative bank, therefore, irrespective of explanation of rural branch, they are entitled to claim deduction of an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by them. Assessing Officer and other two appellate authorities opined that appellants/assessees are entitled to claim deduction in respect of bad and doubtful debts with restriction of 7.5% of the total income. They further opined that appellants/assessees are entitled to such benefit for the current year as they have created provisions for bad and doubtful debts in the books of accounts. So far as this issue, there is not much to ponder over the issue. Even otherwise, appellants/assessees have no serious contest on this aspect of the matter. The entire controversy is whether rural branch defined under explanation would include rural branch of a co-operative bank or not.

3. Appellants/assessees claimed deductions under Section 36(l)(viia) of the Act from its total income. It has two types of deductions, i.e. deduction of an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total income and also deduction of an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by their rural branches. So far as first deduction of 7.5%, it was restricted with reference to the provision made in the books of accounts for the current year. So far as 10% of the aggregate average advances, it was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, appeals came to be filed before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Those appeals were allowed following the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench in the case of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax m I.T.A.No.54/Coch/2000 dated 21.07.2003. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By that time, jurisdictional High Court had reversed the order of Commissioner of Income lax (Appeals) so far as Lord Krishna Bank's case (supra) with reference to rural branch. Therefore, Tribunal allowed the appeals of revenue. Aggrieved by the same, appellants/ assessees are before us.

4. According to appellants/assessees, in the absence of mentioning co-operative bank under explanation to Section 36 (l)(viia), one has to understand rural branch of a co-operative bank in its general meaning and not as explained under explanation to Section 36(l)(viia