Tribunal held that when  the return  was selected for limited scrutiny , cpnvesio the same in to full scrutiny  with the approval PCIT is bad in law as it is contrary to the instruction of the Board . As the addition made as cash credits on account of loans from  directors and their relatives are not coved under limited scrutiny  addition is not sustainable .  The Central Board of Direct Taxes in Instruction No. 20 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015 clearly states that when returns are selected through the computer aided scrutiny selection, the assessee is required to be informed whether the case of the assessee is under limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny. In the case of limited scrutiny the reasons therefor are to be given to the assessee. Instruction No. 5 of 2016 dated July 14, 2016 clearly states that only on conversion of case to complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer may examine issues other than the issues involved in limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer is required to intimate the taxpayer regarding conducting the complete scrutiny in his case. The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to follow the instructions issued by the Board.  Relied on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT v. Best Plastics P. Ltd  (2007) 295 ITR 256 (Delhi)  (HC ) . Manju Kaushik (Smt ) v. DY. CIT (2020 )78 ITR (Trib) 564 (Jaipur) and Bothra Financial Services v. ITO (I. T. A. No. 2023 of 2019 dated March 2, 2020) (Delhi)  (Trib) .( AY.2014-15)