Merger of processing and scrutiny assessment depends on the same issue; PF and ESIC disallowance needs contribution-wise verification.

An intimation under section 143(1) does not automatically merge with a later scrutiny assessment under section 143(3); merger applies only where the same issue is common to both proceedings, so the earlier adjustment was not nullified on that basis. PF and ESIC disallowance required verification because employer's contribution falls to be examined under section 43B, while employees' contribution is governed by section 36(1)(va); the record suggested a possible audit-reporting error and the contribution-wise details had to be checked before applying the correct provision. The merger plea failed, but the contribution issue was remitted for limited factual verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 automatically merges with a subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to nullify the earlier adjustment. (ii) Whether the disallowance relating to PF and ESIC contributions required verification to determine whether it pertained to employer's contribution under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 automatically merges with a subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to nullify the earlier adjustment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats processing under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as a prima facie exercise based on the return and apparent adjustments, whereas assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is made on scrutiny of evidence and issues selected for examination. Merger is not automatic in every case. It applies only where the same issues arise in both proceedings and the later assessment covers the same matter. On the facts, the challenged adjustment was not shown to have been superseded merely because a scrutiny assessment was also completed.

Conclusion: The plea of automatic merger was rejected and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance relating to PF and ESIC contributions required verification to determine whether it pertained to employer's contribution under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The legal position distinguishes employer's contribution, which falls for consideration under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from employees' contribution, which is governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The record suggested that the impugned disallowance may have been based on a tax audit reporting error and could include employer's contribution as well. The additional ground was admitted as a pure question of law, and the matter was restored for limited factual verification because the issue could not be conclusively resolved without examining the contribution-wise details.

Conclusion: The additional ground was allowed for statistical purposes and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed on the merger argument, but the disallowance issue was sent back for limited verification, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 merges with a later scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 only where the same issue is common to both proceedings, and a contribution-based disallowance must be examined by distinguishing employer's contribution from employees' contribution before applying the relevant provision.

---