The assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) . on the basis of the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer under S. 92CA(3) . The assessee filed its objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Panel directed the Assessing Officer to modify the order. The Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect to the revised transfer pricing adjustment  The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144C(13) . Since the Transfer Pricing Officer had changed in the meanwhile, the Tribunal held that the new Transfer Pricing Officer should have given hearing to the assessee and by an order set aside the assessment order. An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was partly allowed. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee raised the additional ground that after the remand, a fresh draft assessment order had not been passed. The Tribunal allowed the additional ground and held that the assessment was not valid. On appeal  , the Court held that a draft assessment order was an essential requirement of the scheme of section 144C and in view of the admitted factual position, the Tribunal was not in error in admitting the additional ground of appeal. Court also held that  the Tribunal set aside the entire exercise and the matter was relegated to the Assessing Officer. Once the matter was sent back to be decided afresh it went back to the stage of section 144C(1) of the Act. Since the Tribunal set aside the proceedings on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the first exercise was void and without jurisdiction. Therefore, nothing remained on the record, including the draft assessment order. Therefore, issuance of a draft assessment order was necessary. Proceedings were to be started afresh on remand. Non-issuance of the draft assessment order thus vitiated the final assessment order.