By these separate reference application under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961, presented on 13th Dec., 1984, CIT North Eastern Region, Shillong, requires Tribunal to refer following common question claimed to be question of law and arising out of consolidated order of Tribunal dt. 25th Sept., 1984 for asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1978-79 to Hon ble High Court at Gauhati for its esteemed opinion: "Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that for considering exemption under s. 10(26) of IT Act, 1961, it is Table only which is appended to Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule constitution of India which should be referred to and no reference should be made to contents of Paragraph 20 itself, Sub-paragraph (2) of which excluded some areas from Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee s income which arose in Police Bazar Municipal Word, is exempt from Income-tax under s. 10(26)?" application moved on behalf of assessee seeking adjournment has been rejected by us. At time of hearing none put in appearance on behalf of assessee and, therefore, all these case were heard ex parte and have to be disposed of on basis of submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record. ld. Departmental Representative, Shri K. Chakraborty, has contended that question suggested by Department is question of law and should, therefore, be referred for opinion of Hon ble High Court. assessee has filed reply to these reference applications contending that no question of law referable to High Court arises out of order of Tribunal; that answer to question is plain and self-evident and as such question need not be referred to High Court and that when construction is plain and obvious reference to High Court is not required to be made. Certain authorities have also been cited in support of these contentions. assessee in this case is individual and is member of Scheduled Tribe and belonging to Khasi Tribal community. One of her sources of income is plying of taxi on hire. assessee place of business in respect of taxi plying business is in Laban, Shillong. Before, ITO assessee claimed exemption form tax in respect of income derived form taxi plying business under s. 10(26) of IT Act, 1961, on ground that she is member of Schedule Tribe as defined in cl. (25) of Art. 366 of constitution of India and is residing in Shillong specified in Part I or Part II of Table appended to Para 20 of Sixth Schedule of Constitution, and that this source of income also lies in specified area. In support of her contention assessee placed reliance on order of Tribunal, Gaugati Bench, Gauhati, dt. 18th Jan., 1978 in case of H. O. Unger, (in ITA Nos. 638 and 639 (Gau) of 1966-67). ITO accepted assessee s connotation that she is am member of Scheduled Tribe as defined in Art. 366(25) of Constitution but was of view that since assessee resides at Shillong where some areas has been declared as specified area and some are not and as she was having mixed source of income from both specified and non-specified area, she is not entitled to exemption claimed under s. 10(26) of IT Act, 1961. In assessment order of asst. yr. 1964-65 it was mentioned by ITO that assessee gave taxi to M/s Auto Trade Travel, Police Bazar, Shillong for earning income. officer of Auto Trade Travel is situated at Police Bazar which according to reasoning given by ITO is outside specified area. So, for asst. yr. 1964-65 ITO added income from taxi business in hands of assessee and for same reason, income from taxi business was added in asst. yrs. 1965- 66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1974-75. In asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1973-74 there was no mention of any income f r o m taxi business in assessment orders of those years. But in assessment order for asst. yr. 1970-71 ITO has specifically mentioned that this year assessee had no income from taxi. When matter came up for consideration before Tribunal it was submitted on behalf of Department that in view of notification issued by Governor of Assam and referred to in cl. (26) of s. 10 of IT Act, 1961 some part of Shillong cannot be regarded as specified areas for purpose of exemption under that clauses and that ITO was, therefore, justified in exemption under that clauses and that ITO was, therefore, justified in bringing to tax income derived by assessee, reliance was placed on decision of Tribunal in case of H. O. Unger (supra) as also on decision of case of Shri Tura Singh in ITA Nos. 120 to 122(Gau) of 1981 dt. 29th Feb., 1984. Tribunal, on consideration of rival submissions, expressed view that even if part of Shillong is excluded under notification issued by Governor, it will have no effect on claim of assessee as admittedly Shillong lies within Khasi and Jaintia Hills District which is specified in Part II of Table appended to Paragraph 20. Tribunal also followed aforesaid decisions of Tribunal in cases of H. O. Unger and Shri Tura Singh (supra). It was further found by Tribunal that for assessment years prior to 1975-76 income from taxi business arose and occurred within Shillong. It was further found that prior to asst. yr. 1975-76 source of income from taxi business lay in area specified in Part II of Table appended to Paragraph 20. Tribunal thus concluded that conditions laid down in s. 10(26) for exemption stood fulfilled in respect of income from taxi business of asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1967-68, 1969-70, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75. For asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1978-79, it was found that income form taxi arose in specified area and part of income also arose in area falling outside specified area. In case of H. O. Unger (supra) Tribunal vide its order dt. 27th May, 1978 in R. A. Nos. 91 and 92 (Gau) of 1977-78 for asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 rejected reference applications. This order was followed by Tribunal for asst. yr. 1977-78 in case of Mrs. D. M. Unger, as result of which it rejected Reference Application moved by Department vide its order dt. 1st March, 1984 in RA No. 64 (Gau) of 1983. It may further be seen that in case of Shri Tura Singh (supra) also Tribunal vide its order dt. 24th Sept., 1984 in R. A. Nos. 49 to 51 (Gau) of 1984 has rejected reference applications moved by Department. Following reasons given by Tribunal while rejecting reference application moved on behalf of Department in case of Shri Tura Singh (supra) and H. O. Unger (supra), we hold that no referable question of law arises in present case. In result, reference applications stand rejected. PER EGBERT SINGH, A.M.: R. A. Nos. 109(Gau) to 115 (Gau) of 1984 I agree with view expressed by my ld. brother on reference application filed by CIT, as given by him in his elaborate order while rejecting reference applications. I have also gone through common question as framed and records and facts of case. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that we should refer to decision of Hon ble High Court (FB) in case of I. C. Chakraborty vs. Khasi Hill District Council as reported in AIR 1984 Gau 92, in which definition and ambit of proviso to para 20 of sixth Schedule to Constitution of India had been dealt with elaborately and conclusively. Although in that decision issue before their Lordships was regarding jurisdiction of District Council over certain areas of Mukha and Bara Bazar, being part of Shillong Municipality. At page 94 (inner column) it was noted that on plain reading of clause(2) of Para 20 it was found that it was indicated that territory of United Khasi Jaintia Hills District composed of territories which before commencement of Constitution were known as Khasi States and Khasi Jaintia Hills District. No such area forming cantonment and Municipality of Shillong are exceeded from said district. Such other area of Khasi States which came within limit of Municipality of Shillong would also be territory of said district. It was also noted that entire area of United Khasi Jaintia of Sixth Schedule and proviso to cl. (2) of Para 20 cuts down operation of Sixth Schedule in respect of some matter enumerated in proviso wherein jurisdiction of District-Council are outset. At page 96 (inner column top) it was also held that including part found in definition in said para was necessary to show that although Millennium Syiemship area of Shillong town is part of Shillong Municipality, same would be Tribal area by operation of provision contained in proviso to Sub-para (2) of Para 20 and that this area of Mylliem Syiemship which is contained within municipality limits of Shillong, is taken out municipality limits of Shillong, is taken out of jurisdiction of District Council with regard to certain powers vested in District Council, although aforesaid Mylliem Syiemship are shall remain as tribal area for other purposes. It was also held that reasons behind "excluding and including definition" in para 20(2) are that if Shillong Municipality and Cantonment areas were like other areas of erstwhile Assam, there is no reason to defined United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District as in para 20(2), but in view of historical, sociological and etymological background of Syiemship area, definition was necessary. As pointed out above although issue before Hon ble High Court was regarding jurisdiction of District Council over certain areas of Shillong Municipality, yet this decision of Hon ble High Court has direct bearing on issue involved in present reference applications as it was held by Hon ble High Court that for certain limited and specified purposes of District Council, areas forming cantonment and municipality of Shillong are excluded from Khasi-Jaintia Hills District, but shall remain tribal areas for other purpose (at page 94 and page 95 inner column). Therefore, reference applications in present case by CIT are to be rejected, as it has been done in other similar cases as discussed by my ld. brother at para 9 of this present order. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SMT. MARGRET