Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that in terms of sub-section (2) of section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to give the assessee 30 days’ time to either file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft order or to accept the draft order. Even if the assessee accepted the draft order or did not prefer to go before the Dispute Resolution Panel within 30 days, the time prescribed for the Assessing Officer to frame the final order under section 144C(3) of the Act as given in sub-section (4) of section 144C of the Act was within one month from the end of the month, i. e., between February 1, 2020 and February 28/29, 2020. However, the assessee had preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel within 30 days of receipt in terms of sub-section (2)(b) of section 144C of the Act on January 24, 2020 which fact was intimated to the Assessing Officer by letter dated January 27, 2020 at the office of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer ought to have awaited the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel as envisaged under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Act. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel were binding on the Assessing Officer in terms of sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act and after the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer could have framed the assessment without providing any opportunity to the assessee as envisaged in sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act. The Assessing Officer having failed to wait for the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel and having arbitrarily framed the final assessment order the final assessment order passed by him was vitiated. The Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame the final assessment order on January 27, 2020 under section 144C(3) of the Act. The final assessment order under section 144C(3) of the Act dated January 27, 2020 and the demand notice under section 156 of the Act were therefore, null in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.( AY.2016-17)