On writ   the question raised by the petitioner is , whether the failure to pass a draft assessment order before passing the final assessment order invalidated the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 and the subsequent demand notice under section 156 and penalty proceedings under section 270A.  Allowing the petition the Court held that   the Assessing Officer’s omission to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C was not merely a procedural oversight, but a substantive lapse, which rendered the final assessment order, the demand notice under section 156 and the penalty proceedings under section 270A devoid of jurisdiction. While the Commissioner exercised the revision powers under section 263 , his action was primarily rooted in the belief that the original assessment order was erroneous and potentially detrimental to the Revenue’s interests. However, on remand, the Assessing Officer had passed the order in question revising the assessee’s income, and increased its tax liability. Therefore, the order was clearly prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. A draft assessment order should have been made available to the assessee. Failure to pass a draft assessment order had effectively denied the assessee an opportunity to seek adjudication before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C(1) in respect of the allegations in the order. Although this order was passed in remand proceedings to give effect to the directions of the Commissioner, issued under section 263 , yet it qualified as a fresh assessment order within the ambit of section 143(3) . Given this characterization, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer, not just as a matter of procedure, but also as a matter of law, to adhere to the special provisions delineated in section 144C(1) (AY.2006-07)