Held,  that the Department’s contention is not tenable because while it is true that a direction framed by the Dispute Resolution Panel is in one sense inchoate and remains latent till it comes to be transformed into an actual order of assessment, the writ petition was concerned with a challenge raised on the ground of limitation. The assessee questioned the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed to frame an order of assessment pursuant to any direction that the Dispute Resolution Panel may frame. Hence the High Court could consider the matter under article 226.  That from the undisputed facts which obtained under the order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 2017  certain aspects were remanded for the consideration of the Transfer Pricing Officer directly. These were neither questioned nor assailed at any time by the respondents. In fact, the directions as framed were duly acknowledged and accepted which fact becomes evident from not only the various notices which were issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer but also by the action of the Transfer Pricing Officer himself who had proceeded to pass an order on October 17, 2017. It was thus apparent that the principal order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 2017 ^[1] had come to be duly implemented by the Transfer Pricing Officer on October 17, 2017 itself. Once the Transfer Pricing Officer had proceeded to pass the order of October 17, 2017, all that the Assessing Officer was obliged to do was pass an assessment order in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 92CA(4) of the Act.That the Tribunal, while remanding certain items for reconsideration to the Assessing Officer, had remitted the issues pertaining to arm’s length price directly to the Transfer Pricing Officer. This was based on the consent of parties. Even the aspect of corporate guarantee was remanded directly to the Transfer Pricing Officer subject to the rider that it would be taken up for consideration after the Special Bench had rendered its decision. Thus the original order of assessment dated February 21, 2014 and in terms of the order of the Tribunal, a fresh order of assessment was liable to be drawn before the expiry of nine months from the end of the relevant financial year. Admittedly this period of nine months when reckoned from July 14, 2017 undoubtedly came to an end on December 31, 2018. Once that terminal point was reached, the respondent clearly stood deprived of jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of assessment pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal. The Transfer Pricing Officer had acting in terms of the directions as framed by the Tribunal already passed a consequential order on October 17, 2017. All that was required of the respondents thereafter was for the Assessing Officer to frame an order of assessment in accordance therewith. The second reference which was framed by the Assessing Officer and was dated December 27, 2018, was clearly unwarranted and in any case could not be viewed as conferring a fresh lease of life to the power to assess. The Assessing Officer was barred in law from passing any further orders of final assessment pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. (AY.2009-10)