By these three reference applications under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961, presented on 31st May, 1984, CIT North Eastern Region, Shillong requires Tribunal to refer following two questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of consolidated order of Tribunal dt. 29th Feb., 1984 in ITA Nos. 120 to 122 (Gau) of 1981 to Hon'ble High Court at Gauhati. "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that income of assessee arising from any areas within Khasi Hills District and Jaintia Hills District is exempted under s. 10(26) of AT Act, 1961, and no area should be taken as excluded for purpose of s. 10(26) ibid as sub-para (v) of para 20 of Sixth Sch. to Constitution does not apply for purpose of Act IT. Whether, Item 1 of relevant part of table appended to para 20 of Sixth Sch. to Constitution has not to be read and understood having regard to provisions contained in sub- paras (1) and (2) of para 20 of Sixth Sch. to Constitution for purposes of determining scope and effect of s. 10(26) of It Act, 1961, and whether Tribunal was justified in law in considering said Table in isolation, without having regard to provisions of sub-paras (1) and (2) of said para 20." assessee is civil contractor. He claimed before ITO that his income from contract business was exempt in accordance with provisions contained in s. 10(26) of IT Act, 1961. ITO, however, refused to grant exemption as claimed by assessee. AAC by his consolidated order dt. 6th March, 1981 held that assessee was entitled to exemption claimed in as much as assessee during relevant assessment years was residing in area specified in Part I and Part II of table appended to para 20 of Sixth Sch. of Constitution, i.e., United Khasi and Jaintia Hills. He accordingly, by following Tribunals order in case of Late H. O. Unger, Khasi tribal of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills District, vide ITA No. 638 (Gau) and 639 (Gau) of 1967-68 held that assessee could not be taxed in view of clear provisions of s. 10(26) of Act. He, therefore, cancelled ITO's order of assessment for 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. On second appeal, Tribunal upheld AAC's order. reasoning given by Tribunal may be found in paras 7 and 8 of order which are as follow: "We have carefully gone through order of out learned brothers in ITA Nos. 638 & 639 (Gau) of 1976-77 dt. 18th Jan., 1978. We have also examined contents of para 20 of Sixth Sch. of Constitution of India. According to sub-para (2) of said para 20 reference to Khasi Hills District and Jaintia Hills District in para II of table appended to para 20 would include area comprised within municipality of Shillong which were admittedly part of Khasi Jaintia Hills District before appointed day mentioned in cl. (b) of s. 2 of North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. proviso to sub- para (2) excludes area comprised within Municipality of Shillong from Khasi Jaintia Hills District for certain purposes only and not for all purposes. purposes for which areas comprised within Municipality of Shillong is deemed to be not forming part of Khasi Jaintia Hills District area listed in said proviso as follows: (1) For purposes of cls. (a) & (f) of sub-para (1) of para 3 of Sixth Sch.; (2) For purposes of paras 4, 5 and 6; (3) For purposes of sub-paras (2), cls. (a), (b) & (d) of sub-para 3 & sub-para (4) of para 8 and cl. (d) of sub-s. (2) of para 10 of Sixth Sch. "A reference to above clauses would show that in none of then there is reference to IT Act. Para 3 deals with powers of District Council and Regional Council to make laws. Such District Council and Regional Councils would not be able to make laws with regard to areas comprised within Municipality of Shillong in respect of allotment, occupation or use or setting part of land, etc., or any other matter relating to village or town administration including village or town, police and public health and sanitation. Para 4 deals with administration and justice in autonomous Districts and autonomous regions. Para 5 confers powers under CPC, 1908 and CrPC, 1898 on Regional and District Councils and on certain courts and officers for trial of certain suits, cases and offences. Para 6 gives powers to District Councils to establish primary schools, etc. No provisions of aforesaid paragraph would be applicable to areas comprised within Municipality of Shillong. Para 8 confers powers to assess and collect land revenue and to impose taxes on Regional councils and District Councils. powers referred to in cls. (a), (b) and (d) of sub-para (3) and sub-para (4) of para 8 would not apply to areas comprised within Municipality of Shillong. Para 10 relates to power of District Council to made regulations for control of money lending and trading by non-tribals. According to proviso to sub-para (2) of para 20 referred to above, power given to District Councils vide cl. (d) of sub-para (2) of para 10 will not affect all persons residing within area comprised within Municipality of Shillong." In our opinion, first question raised by revenue is purely question of fact. Tribunal on proper appreciation of facts decided issue against Revenue. answer to second question raised, in our opinion, is self evident in view of clear provisions of s. 10(26) of IT Act 1961, and Constitution of India. It is pertinent to point out that Tribunal dismissed departmental appeals by relying on Tribunal's order in ITA No.s 638 (Gau) and 639 (Gau) of 1967-68 in case of H. O. Unger. Against said decision, department preferred reference applications under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961, but said reference applications in R. A. No.s 91 (Gau) & 92 (supra) of 1977-78 were rejected by this Tribunal. applications under s. 256 (2) of IT Act are pending before Hon'ble High Court Gauhati against said rejection. In accordance with reasonings given in R. A. Nos. 91 (Gau) & 92 (Gau) of 1977-78, we are of opinion that these reference applications should also be rejected. reference application filed by department for asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1976-77 are, accordingly, rejected. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. TURA SINGH