first controversy in this appeal is with regard to rate of depreciation that should be allowed to assessee in respect of generator installed by it in its tea factory. contention of assessee is that purpose of said generator is to provide power to its machines with which it manufactures tea and, therefore, said generator is part of machines used for tea industry and in view of this it is eligible for depreciation at rates prescribed for machine used in tea factory namely, 15. It is also pointed out by assessee investment allowance in respect of said that said machinery has been allowed to assessee by CIT(A) on ground that said generator was part of machine used in ten industry. This being so, it was illogical not to allow depreciation on said generator at rate applicable to machines used in tea industry. On behalf of Revenue order of ld. CIT(A) is supported. contention of assessee appears to be prima facie tenable, but we notice that electrical machinery including switchgear, instruments, transformers and other stationary plants and wiring and fittings of electric lines etc., are not eligible for depreciation at special rates (see notes in depreciation table at end of part-(III). In Entry No. 21 against item (b) in Appendix 2 part-I, sub- part (iii), machines on which special rate of 15 per cent has been mentioned are described as follows: "the factories-general machinery and plant including rollers and driers". aforesaid adjective used before machinery namely, "General" is significant and has been used in contrast to machineries which are not general machinery for example, in contrast to electrical machines. Generators is not general machinery. It generates electricity and is part of electrical machines and its function will remain unaltered in whatever industry it is used. Therefore, ld. CIT (A) was justified in not allowing depreciation on generator at special rates as it is not general machinery used in tea factories alone. entry in question on which reliance has been placed on behalf of assessee does not say that all machines used in manufacture of tea should be allowed depreciation @ 15. entry, on other hand, reads that only "General Machinery installed in tea factories should be granted depreciation at special rates. contention of assessee that inasmuch as, investment allowance had been allowed in respect of generator, logic required that depreciation should also be allowed on same, misses vital difference between requirements of s. 32A and those of Entry No. (21) referred to above. Clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 32A provides that investment allowance shall be available in respect of "any new machinery of plant installed after 31st March, 1976, - (i) ...(ii)....(iii) in any other industrial undertaking for purposes of business...... manufacture of production of any article or thing .....".....". use of word any in cl. (b) underlined by us above, clearly indicates that no distinction of mentioned in Item B (21) referred to above is contemplated by s. 32A. Investment allowance would be available on respect of new machinery sued in tea industry whether it be general machinery or in electrical machinery. use of word any makes ambit of word machinery very wide and includes every sort of machinery and not merely general machinery. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) was, in our opinion, justified in granting investment allowance to assessee in respect of generator and yet refusing depreciation on it at special rate. Accordingly, his order is hereby confirmed. second controversy is with regard to allocation by ITO of expenditure of Rs. 50 towards dividend income of Rs. 3,300 earned by assessee, According to assessee, it had incurred no expenditure in earning dividend and, therefore, said sum should not have been allocated towards earning of dividend income. above contention of assessee appears to us to be incorrect. some expenditure, may be very nominal, has to be allocated towards dividend income and inasmuch as sum of Rs. 50 is nominal one, we refuse to interfere with order of authorities below on this point. last controversy is with regard to refusal of authorities below to allow to assessee benefit of tax deducted at source in respect of Rs. 5,805. said tax was deducted at source by payer of interest of Rs. 27,000 to assessee in terms of s. 194 (1) of IT Act, 1961. said sum of Rs. 27,000 has been included in total income of assessee for assessment year under consideration, but benefit of tax deducted at source has not been allowed on short ground that tax on aforesaid income was deposited by payer not within financial year, corresponding to previous year under consideration but in July, 1980 and, therefore, credit in respect of this tax cannot be given to assessee in terms of s. 199 of IT Act, 1961. assessee accepts that ITO has given credit to company in assessment for asst. yr. 1981-82, but according to him, this was not correct in law. tax benefit should be given to assessee in year in which income from which tax is deducted at source is included in total income. On behalf of Revenue order of ld. CIT (A) is supported. Sub-s. (1) of s. 194A stipulated that person "responsible for paying to recipient any income by way of interest shall at time of credit of such income to account of payer or at time payment thereof in cash or by issue of cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon, at rates in force." Sec. 198 prescribed that "all sums deducted in accordance with provisions of .........s. 194A........ shall for purposes of computing income of assessees, be deemed to be income received." Sec. 199 which provides for giving credit to assessee for tax deducted at source stipulates, inter alia, as follows: "Any deduction made in accordance with provisions.... ..... .....Sec. 194A.... ...... .....and paid to Central Govt. shall be treated as payment of tax on behalf of person from whose income deduction was made ........... and credit shall be given to him for amount so deducted on production of certificate furnished under s. 203 in assessment, ............... if any, made for immediately following assessment year under this Act." Sec. 203 to which reference has been made in s. 199 above casts obligation on person deducting tax at source to issue certificate of such tax deduction. said section, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows: "......... every person deducting tax in accordance with previsions of sections ...........194A.........shall at time of credit or payment of sum or as case may be, at time of issue of cheque......furnish to person to whose accounts such credit is given or to whom such payment is made.......... certificate to effect that tax has been deducted, and specifying amount so deducted .........." Sec. 200 casts duty on person, deducting tax, to pay tax so deducted at source within prescribed time and, if he fails to make payment in accordance with s. 200 he is liable to penal provisions of s. 201. Sec. 205 creates bar against direct demand on assessee from whose income-tax has been deducted at source. It reads, interalia, as follows: "Where tax is deductible at source under .............sec. 194A .............the assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax himself to extent to which tax has been deducted from that income". In light of above provisions of Act it has to be decided as to whether credit for tax deducted at source from person s interest income has been given to him in respect of previous year in which tax has been deducted or in respect of previous year in which it is paid. It is common ground that, in present case, M/s Pannalal Kejriwal have paid to assessee interest of Rs. 21,195 only and have deducted tax of Rs. 5,805. gross interest that was due to assessee from M/s Pannalal Kejriwal was Rs. 27,000. income of Rs. 27,000 was included in assessee s hands in view of provisions of s. 198, which provided that all sums deducted in accordance with provisions of s. 194A shall for purpose of computing income of n assessee be deemed to be income received. Thus even though assessee had not received Rs. 5,805 from M/s Pannalal Kejriwal, being tax deducted at source by them from assessee s income of Rs. 27,000, it was deemed to be income of assessee in terms of aforesaid s. 198 and was accordingly included in assessee s total income. responsibility to pay tax so deducted rested not with assessee but with M/s Pannalal Kejriwal. This position has been made clear by provisions of s. 200 and s. 201 of IT Act, 1961. If person who deducted tax did not pay same, he could be treated as person in default and ITO could proceed against him for recovery of tax in question. assessee was in no way responsible or obliged to take any steps to compel person who had deducted tax from his income to pay such tax to Govt. Treasury and ITO could not proceed against him for recovery of tax, which had been deducted at source from his income, as per s. 205. Sec. 203 provided that as soon as tax is deducted by person from income of another person, he will issue certificate of tax deduction to person concerned and on production of such certificate issued under s. 203 credit in respect of tax deducted at source will be given to him vide s. 199. If depositing of tax in Govt. Treasury by person who deducted tax at source was pre-requisite for granting credit to assessee under s. 199, there would be no insistence on production of certificate under s. 203 in s. 199 Any person who produces certificate under s. 203 has to be granted benefit of tax deducted at source. form in which such certificate has to be issued is prescribed by sub-r. (2) of r. 31 of IT Rules and is designated as Form No. 17 perusal thereof shown that person who issues such certificate does not have to certify in it that tax deducted at source by him been deposited in Govt. Treasury. He has merely to certify that tax has been deducted. provisions of s. 199 of IT Act, 1961 have to be understood within aforesaid broad frame work of scheme visulaized by Act regarding tax deduction at source, its payment in Govt. Treasury and its credit to person from whose income income-tax is deducted and assessment year in which such credit is to be given. bare perusal of section would show that it has two limbs. first limb treats tax deduced at source "and" paid to Central Govt. as "a payment of tax on behalf of person" concerned. By its very nature, mere deduction of tax will not be enough to treat tax deducted as tax paid. two acts are distinct and sequential one following other tax should first be deducted and then paid to Central Govt. Only when other tax should first be deducted and then paid to Central Govt. Only when payment has been made, can it be said that payment of tax has been made on behalf of person from whose income tax was deducted. Payment of tax is thus essential ingredient before first limb of s. 199 can be activated. Sec. 199 does not go into time limit of payment of tax deducted, said subject is dealt with by s. 200. It merely stipulates that tax deducted whenever paid will be treated as tax paid on behalf of person from whose income tax was deducted. Thus, in present case, tax, though deducted in previous year relevant for asst. yr. 1980-81, was paid to Central Govt. in financial year 1980-81 (July 1980), corresponding to asst. yr. 1981-82. tax so paid has to be correlated back to income from which it was deducted. It has nothing to do with time of payment of financial year in which it is paid. deduction is directly relatable to income from which it is deducted and as per s. 198, such deduction is deemed to be income of year in which deduction is made, for such deduction, and not payment thereof to Central Govt. is deemed to be income received by assessee. Such deducted tax is treated as paid on behalf or assessee when it is paid to Central Govt. second limb of s. 199 specifies asst. yr. in respect of which credit will be given. According to it, credit will be given in assessment made for immediately following asst. yr. Now, question is "immediately following" what deduction or payment of tax? answer is provided by earlier part of second limb which makes credit for tax deducted conditional on production of certificate under s. 203. We have seen above that such certificate is in Form 19 and it merely certifies to act of tax deduction, and not to deposit of tax in Govt. Treasury. Thus, credit for tax deducted will be given in assessment of assessment year immediately following financial year in which tax is deducted, and in respect of which certificate under s. 203 has been issued. combined reading of two limbs of s. 199 thus leads one to conclusion (i) that credit for tax deducted will be given in assessment made for assessment year immediately following tax deduction, but (ii) such tax deducted will not be treated as paid on behalf of assessee, unless paid to Central Govt. credit, though given as per second limb of s. 199 in assessment for assessment year immediately following financial year in which tax was deducted, will have to await its effectuation till date of tax deducted earlier. As soon as such tax is paid in Govt. Treasury, it reverts back to act of deduction and assessee is entitled to credit in respect of such tax, which was otherwise outstanding from him, but could also not be recovered from him till such payment was made. If, therefore, there is interregnum between deduction of tax and payment thereof, correct course in law would be to treat tax not so paid as outstanding from assessee, (though its recovery cannot be pressed against assessee) and as soon as tax is paid, payment is adjusted against tax so outstanding. To relate tax paid to assessment in respect of previous year in which tax was paid is against scheme of Act as discussed above. In present case tax has been paid in July, 1980. Such payment will b e adjusted against tax due from assessee for year under consideration and which was outstanding till payment in question was made. tax will, of course, be treated as paid on behalf of assessee in July, 1980, but payment will be in respect of tax due from assessee for assessment year under consideration. With these observations, we dispose of present appeal treating it as partly allowed. *** ARYA TEA CO LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER