be treated to be three J/ears as its stands from the tirr: the 2"d proviso to Section 14(1) stood omitted. However, learnt:ci counsel for the petitioner rlras not in a position to contradict tl c fact that thc assessment order involved in the instant case was 2('.)O-2OO1 and the 2nd proviso to Set:tion i4(l ) u,as in lorce tiil 31.03.24 ) 1 . Therefore, it was the 2nd pror,,iso s hich ri,ould have been the bzrs,r ; for determining the period of limitation arrd not the omitted portiorr rvhich came into force from 0l .04.200 1 onr,r,ards. This fact had ber r duly considered and decided by the Tribunal while passing the impugneci order .. Furlher. the learned counsel for the petitioner was I ,r irr a position to shor.r, that the 2n(r proviso to Section 14(1) would nc: be applicable to the facts of present case n,here the assessment or ler is that of the year 2OOO-200 1. In the absence of which, the finl ngs arrived at bv the Tribunal so far as the aspect of limitation is cor -:erned, cannot be found fault, and therefore the order passed by tJt: Tribunal stands a-fhrmed. Since thc assessment order, as held b1, t te Tribunal, is hit by the iaw of limitation and the same being barrerl by limitation, this Bench does not lind any good reason for entering in o the merits of the case and test the veracity of the 'F" Forms that ha ve been submitted by the re sponden t-A sse s see
