Assessee was a civil contractor. Assessing Officer selected case of assessee for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine interest expenses, sundry creditors and other expenses claimed in profit and loss account. Assessee filed various details and replies. Assessing Officer examined details and replies and out of other expenses disallowed certain expenses due to unsupported vouchers and added back to income of assessee and framed assessment under section 143(3).  Subsequently Commissioner relying on Explanation 2 to section 263  passed the revision order for reasons that there was duplication of expenses claimed by assessee, assessee did not explain step reduction in net profit rate, assessee failed to provide any evidence for genuineness of collaborate expenses incurred and set aside assessment order with direction to Assessing Officer to redo assessment in accordance with law. On appeal the Tribunal held that   all three aspects of limited scrutiny were duly examined and verified by Assessing Officer and certain addition was made after perusal of all evidences. As assessment was framed after due verification and examination and no error could be found in assessment order, Explanation 2 to section 263 would have no application. Revision order is quashed. (AY. 2015-16)