Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that , the AO in his order had taken in to account the fact that the assessee was exporting shoes and fluctuations , if any in its accounts were due to fluctuating rate of exchange , travelling expenses etc accordingly the order of Tribunal quashing the revision was held to be justified . ( AY.2004-05)
CIT v. Metro And Metro. (2018) 404 ITR 304 (All) (HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
The AO had examined entire records and there was nothing erroneous in his order, therefore revision order of commissioner was not valid.