.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These appeals by primary agricultural credit societies registered and classified as such under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short, 'KCS Act' relate to exemptions claimed by them with reference to section 80P(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter, 'IT Act'. Issues are also raised relating to the validity or otherwise of the returns filed by the assessees beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 for the purpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of the IT Act. Incidental issues relating to doubtful debts proportionate to the gross total income and the status of rural branch to claim deduction referable to section 36 (1)(viia) of the IT Act are also raised.

2. Heard Snr. Adv. Firoze B. Andhyarujina and Snr. Adv. T.M. Sreedharan and other learned advocates for the appellants and Snr. Adv. P.K.R. Menon, learned senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) assisted by Adv. Jose Joseph, standing counsel for Income Tax Department and Adv. Ajay V. Anand.

3. ITA.No.212 of 2013 was admitted on 21.11.2013 and the following substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admission for consideration:-

(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in law in deciding against the assessee, the issue regarding entitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoring the fact that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society?

(B) Whether the Tribunal is justified in denying the exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the mere ground of belated filing of return by the assessee?

(C) Whether a return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in law and invalid for the purpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

(D) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law or is justified in restricting the provisions for bad and doubtful debt at the 7.5% of the gross total income, on the reason that the assessee is not entitled for the status of rural branch to claim 10% of the aggregate average advances as bad and doubtful debt, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

4. Thereafter, noticing that all the captioned appeals give rise to the same questions of law, the other appeals were also admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in ITA.No.212 of 2013 and those substantial questions of law were incorporated into the other appeals as well.

5. Before proceeding further, we may note that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also proceeded to decide many of the fundamental issues as if they are common to all these cases. Some of the matters before the Tribunal were either bunched up and decided in one go, while the others were rendered following the earlier decisions on the same issue.

6. Of prime importance is the plea of the appellants that they are primary agricultural credit societies and are, therefore, eligible to exemption in terms of sub-section 4 of section 80P of the IT Act. The characteristics of the appellants as primary agricultural credit societies including the fact that they are registered under the KCS Act and that their fund management is in terms of the regulatory directions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and other aspects are referred to, to show that all the appellants are eligible to the exemption provided for through section 80P(4) of the IT Act. We will detail the relevant statutory provisions as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants as we proceed with the consideration of the issue in this regard.

7. Submissions were also made on the questions raised relating to the belated filing of returns. Some of the cases are those were returns were filed belatedly; some relate to claim of exemption after best of judgment assessments; and, yet another group relates