Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had issued notice of demand on June 29, 2021 which was the same date on which the alleged final assessment order was passed. Statutorily it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to pass the final assessment order after the draft assessment order and then issue notice of demand. Issuance of notice of demand brought finality to the process of assessment. Before the notice of demand is issued one cannot say that the assessment has concluded. Since, the Assessing Officer had issued the notice of demand at the stage of draft order which actually ought to have been done at the stage of passing a final order, thereby assigning finality to the assessment at the stage of draft order itself. If the Assessing Officer wanted the assessee to treat the order dated June 29, 2021 as the draft assessment order he should not have issued demand notice and penalty notice to the assessee and even when he had issued them he should have withdrawn them which in fact he had not done. The demand notice and the penalty notice are issued only after the final assessment is completed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had violated the provisions of section 144C of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order was vitiated in the eyes of law and bad in law. (AY.2017-18)