Tribunal held that  the fact that the case of the assessee was selected limited scrutiny to verify the genuineness of expenditure with reference payments made to persons falling under s. 194C, same could not be enlarged include other expenditure claimed by the assessee which are not subject to the provisions of s. 194C and, therefore, Principal CIT cannot initiate proceeding under s. 263 on that issue; since the payment made to the contractor has be duly examined by the AO and necessary documentation of the particulars of the contractor are on record, the claim of the assessee could not be rejected solely  because the contractor has not filed its return of income and, therefore, the order passed by the AO cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest  of the Revenue. (AY. 2018-19)