JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— The appeal is by the Revenue and cross-objections are by the assessee. In the circumstances, these two matters are taken up together for hearing. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I.T.A. No 229/Bang/2003 wherein the Tribunal has reversed the concurrent findings of the order of assessment and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. 3. Facts of the case are as hereunder: 4. The respondent-assesses is a trust running an educational institution. According to the assessee, for the assessment year 2001-02, it had obtained an exemption under Section 10(22), (23C) of the Income Tax Act. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee was required to file return of income on or before October 30, 2001, and the assessee did not file return of income within the stipulated time and the same was filed belatedly on December 21, 2001. Since there was delay in filing the return, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act. The assessee, in response to the notice submitted a reply stating that it was under a bona fide impression that filing of the return on or before October 30, 2001, was not compulsory in view of the exemption granted to it. The cause shown by the assessee was not accepted by the authorities and levied penalty of Rs. 51,600 by order dated September 23, 2002. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which appeal came to be dismissed on December 27, 2002. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the assessee filed further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted relief in part by holding that when the application was not filed by the assessee claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act and when the Department has refused to grant exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, the Revenue cannot invoke Section 139(4A) of the Act and, therefore, held that levying of penalty invoking the provisions of Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act was not proper. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part. Being aggrieved by this portion of the order, the Revenue has filed this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part. Being aggrieved by this portion of the order, the Revenue has filed this appeal. The assessee has also filed cross-objections contending that the Tribunal did not consider the contention of the assessee that it was under a bona fide impression and was not required to file return on or before October 30, 2001, in view of the obtaining exemption under Section 10(22)/(23C) of the Act. According to him, the cause shown by him should have been accepted treating the same as reasonable cause. 5. In the circumstances, we have to consider the questions of law which arise in the appeal as well as in the cross-objections. The question of law that arises in the appeal is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee having obtained exemption under Section 10(23C)/10(22) of the Act, levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act by relying upon Section 139(4A) of the Act does not arise since no exemption was granted to the assessee under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act? 6. Similarly, the following substantial question of law arises in the cross-objections: Whether in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal are justified in holding that the cross-objector did not show reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the return? 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. 8. During the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that in parallel proceedings the Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee granting registration under Section 12A of the Act. In the light of the registration granted to the assessee by the Tribunal and which order has become final due to non-challenging the same by the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the order of penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(e) of the Act has to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the view that without answering the substantial question of law which arise in the appeal as well as in the cross-objections, all the orders have to be set aside directing the assessing authority to consider the effect of grant of registration in favour of the assessee under Section 12A of the Act and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. 9. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objections are allowed and whether the cause shown by the assessee was reasonable or not shall also be considered by the assessing authority afresh.