The petitioner filed its return of income, returning certain income under section 115JB. The income under the normal provisions of the Act was shown as Nil. The assessee’s case was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order under section 143(3) came to be passed determining the book profits after adding a sum under section 14A. The assessee challenged the assessment order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).On perusal of the portal, it was found that a demand of Rs.46.84 lakhs was appearing in the portal as against the assessee. It appeared that the demand arose out of an order passed under section 154. As no communication had been received with regard to the said order, representations were made to the Assessing Officer to provide copy of the rectification order. As no response was received, the assessee even filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005. In response to the application, the assessee was served with a copy of the computation sheet. The assessee, therefore, preferred an appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter and furnish full and appropriate information sought. Notwithstanding this direction by the First Appellate Authority, the assessee received from the Assessing Officer, by a letter, the same documents which were provided earlier. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the demand raised as per the alleged order passed under section 154. The respondent informed the Court that he has instructions that the demand has been uploaded by the erstwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on the portal but the Department does not have any file relating to that matter. The respondent states that his instructions are to inform the Court that the Department has no document to show that any notice was issued under section 154 or even an order was passed under section 154. The Revenue  stated  that if the Court directs, they shall remove the pending demand from the Income Tax Portal pertaining to petitioner. High Court quashed the demand . Honourable  Court  also  directed  the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (PCCIT) to have an enquiry conducted by a person not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to ascertain how such a demand came to be uploaded in the portal pertaining to petitioner and if there has been any negligence or lapse on the part of any officer, to take such action as the PCCIT will feel necessary against the said officer  (AY. 2013-14)