Manjula Chellur, J.

In all the above appeals since the 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 per cent of the aggregate average advances made by its rural branches under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the above cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the definition of rural branch in Explanation (ia) to section 36(1)(viia) is applicable to co-operative banks ?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the above cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the definition of the term 'banking company' in section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act covers a co-operative bank, which is separately defined in section 5(cci) of the said Act ?

2. All the above appeals are directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It is clear from substantial questions of law stated above what exactly is the dispute. Admittedly, appellants-assessee 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) of section 36(1) of Income-tax Act (for short "the Act") particularly refers to co-operative bank, but under the Explanation, while defining rural branch, it does not refer to co-operative bank, therefore, irrespective of the Explanation of rural branch, they are entitled to claim deduction of an amount not exceeding 10 per cent of the aggregate average advances made by them. The Assessing Officer and other two appellate authorities opined that the appellants-assessees are entitled to claim deduction in respect of bad and doubtful debts with the restriction of 7.5 per cent, of the total income. They further opined that the 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 account. So far as this issue, there is not much to ponder over the issue. Even otherwise, the appellants-assessees have no serious contest on this aspect of the matter. The entire controversy is whether rural branch defined under the Explanation would include rural branch of a co-operative bank or not.

3. The appellants-assessees claimed deductions under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act from its total income. It has two types of deductions, i.e., deduction of an amount not exceeding 7.5 per cent of the total income and also the deduction of an amount not exceeding 10 per cent of the aggregate average advances made by their rural branches. So far as the first deduction of 7.5 per cent, it was restricted with reference to the provision made in the books of account for the current year. So far as 10 per cent of the aggregate average advances, it was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, appeals came to be filed before the 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 CIT in I.T.A. No. 54/Coch/2000 dated July 21, 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By that time, the jurisdictional High Court had reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income lax (Appeals) so far as Lord Krishna Bank's case (supra) with reference to rural branch. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants-assessees are before us.

4. According to the appellants-assessee, in the absence of mentioning co-operative bank under the Explanation to section 36(1