ITA 19/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 12th March, 2010 passed in IT A No.169 & 170/Gau/2008 relating to the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The assessee is a contractor and had claimed deduction towards material purchases and labour expenses. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced his books of account s including ledgers, cash books, cash memos, vouchers, bills etc. These were exa mined by the Assessing Officer and were accepted. On this basis, the expenses cl aimed by the assessee were allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of powers conferred by Secti on 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 sought to revise the assessment order. The ba sis on which the assessment order was sought to be revised is that the Assessee had a turnover of Rs.9.66 crores and had shown a low profit of about 1%. On this basis, the Commissioner of Income Tax felt that the order passed by the Assessi ng Officer deserved to be revised. In considering the case of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order on 28.3.2008/1.5.2008 and came to the conclusion that 2% of the expenses said to have been incurred by the assessee on labour charges and purcha se of materials ought to be disallowed. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Ta x Appellate Tribunal which came to be allowed by the order under appeal. In our opinion, only a question of fact has arisen. Insofar as the books of accounts are concerned, they were before the Assessing Officer, including th e ledgers, cash books, cash memos, vouchers, bills etc. It is on the basis of th ese documents that the Assessing Officer allowed the expenses declared by the as sessee on labour charges and material purchases. It may be mentioned that the ex penses said to have been incurred by the assessee were for staff and labour welf are, staff mess expenses, traveling and conveyance hire charges, labour accommod ation, donation and subscription etc. Since the expenses incurred by the assessee were verified from the book of accounts, we are of the opinion that there is no question of law involved muc h less a substantial question of law. The order under appeal does not require our interference as no substanti al question of law arises. Dismissed.