BHANDARI, C.J.—This is a reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under sec. 256(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the new Act. 2. The assessee Messrs. Venichand Maganlal, Sagwara is a registered firm. It was called upon to file a return of its income under sec. 22(2) of the Income Tax, Act 1922 (hereinafter called the old Act) which was served on 26th May, 1961. The return was due on 1st July, 1961, but was filed on 5th November, 1962. For this default, the Income-tax Officer, C Ward, Udaipur imposed a penalty of Rs. 4380/-under sec. 271 (1) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 2 per cent of the tax for each month of default. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jodhpur by the assessee was dismissed. On second appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal took the view that the measure of penalty for a default must be in accordance with law which was in force at the time when the default was made. The Tribunal held that the default of delay in filing the return was committed when the old Act was in force and as there was no limit with regard to the minimum amount of penalty impossible, the Tribunal took the view that it could reduce the penalty. The Tribunal further held that sec. 271(l)(i) of the New Act did not lay any restriction with regard to the minimum penalty impossible and as such any amount of penalty could be imposed which may be less than the amount imposed as penalty though it may be less than the sum at the rate of 2 per cent of the income-tax for every month during which the default continues. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs.200/-. 3. On an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax the Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty imposed under sec. 27l(l)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could validly be reduced from Rs. 4380/- to Rs. 200/-". 4. In reference No. 31/66 Commissioner of Income-tax Rajasthan vs. Messrs. Shankerlal Naraindas made by the said Tribunal we have held that for determining the quantum of penalty, the provision contained in sec.271 (1) (i) of the new Act is applicable. 27l(l)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could validly be reduced from Rs. 4380/- to Rs. 200/-". 4. In reference No. 31/66 Commissioner of Income-tax Rajasthan vs. Messrs. Shankerlal Naraindas made by the said Tribunal we have held that for determining the quantum of penalty, the provision contained in sec.271 (1) (i) of the new Act is applicable. In a case where assessment of an assessee is made under sec.271 (1) (a) of the new Act. For the reasons given in the judgment, we are unable to accept the view expressed by the Tribunal that the quantum of penalty should be in accordance with the law in force at the time when the default was committed. 5. Now there remains only the question whether under sec. 271(1) (i) it was permissible for the Tribunal to impose lesser penalty than what has been imposed by the Income Tax Officer. The relevant part of sec. 271 runs as follows: "271.—Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income etc.—(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his total income which he was required to furnish under sub-sec.(l) of sec. 139 or by notice given under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 139 or sec. 148 or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 139 or by such notice, as the case may be, or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 142 or sub-sec.(2) of sec. 143, or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (1) of sec. 139 or by such notice, as the case may be, or (b) has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 142 or sub-sec.(2) of sec. 143, or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,— (i) In the cases referred to in clause(l), in addition to the amount of tax, if any, payable by him, a sum equal to two per cent, of the tax for every month during which the default continued, but not exceeding in the aggregate fifty percent of the tax; (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than ten per cent but which shall not exceed fifty percent of the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income; (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than twenty percent, but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income. (2) When the person liable to penalty is a registered firm or an unregistered firm which has been assessed under clause (b) of sec. 183, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of this Act, the penalty imposable under sub-sec.(1) shall be the same amount as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm." 6. Sec. 271(1) (i) speaks in unequivocal terms that in the cases referred in clause(a) a sum equal to 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which the default continues, but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent of the tax was to be amount of penalty. This means that the penalty to be imposed is to be calculated at 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which the default continues but the maximum limit was 50 per cent of the tax. This means that the penalty to be imposed is to be calculated at 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which the default continues but the maximum limit was 50 per cent of the tax. The view taken by the Tribunal is that clause (i) does not lay down any minimum limit as has been provided in sec. 271(1) (iii) just as in sec. 271 (1) (iii) both the minimum and maximum limits have been prescribed, and therefore, it can be any sum which is less than 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which the default continues. This argument is fallacious. In arithmetic equal to a particular number, means not less than that particular number as also not more than that particular number. It conveys the idea that it must be exactly the same. Thus it cannot be said that sec. 271(l)(i) does not prescribe the lower limit for imposing the penalty. When this section says that the quantum of penalty imposed must be equal to 2 per cent of the tax during which the default continued, it means that it cannot be less than 2 per cent of the tax for every month during which the default continues because it cannot be more. There is also an upper limit which is that irrespective of the months of default. It cannot exceed 50 per cent of the tax. 7. A question may arise whether the assessee was entitled to any deduction in respect of advance tax paid by him while calculating the amount of penalty. The counsel for the Department has drawn our attention to Circular No. 16-D (V-50 of 1965)(F. No. 10/102/63-I.T. (AI), dated 21-6-1965 of Central Board of Direct Taxes, the relevant portion of which runs as follows: "2. On a representation made by the Gujrat Chamber of Commerce, the matter has been reconsidered by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law. Under sec. 271 (1) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the penalty is to be 2 per cent of the tax, if any, payable by the assessee. On a representation made by the Gujrat Chamber of Commerce, the matter has been reconsidered by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law. Under sec. 271 (1) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the penalty is to be 2 per cent of the tax, if any, payable by the assessee. Sec. 219 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 makes it clear that any sum, other than penalty or interest paid by or reco-vered from the assessee as advance tax in pursuance of Chapter XVII shall be treated as payment of tax in respect of the income of the period which would be the previous year for an assessment for the assessment year next following the financial year in which it was payable and credit therefor shall be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. The two sections read together make it perfectly clear that tax payable by an assessee as referred to in sec. 271(1) (a) is the tax payable after giving credit for the advance tax paid by him as contemplated under sec. 219 3. It has, therefore, been decided that the net amount of tax payable by the assessee for the purposes of sec. 271(1) (i) of the Act, is to be arrived at by excluding the tax deducted at source as well as the advance tax actually paid by the assessee under sections 207 to 219 of the Act. The earlier instructions issued vide circulars referred to above stand superseded to this extent. 8. If the amount of penalty is to be calculated keeping in view of the circular, it is not possible for us to exactly determine the amount of penalty which could be imposed on the assessee. All we can say is that the penalty to be imposed is to be calculated as aforesaid in accordance with the provisions of sec. 271(1) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.