It is not settled, and the two lines pull in opposite directions. A Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has held that the intimation merges into the assessment and loses its force, so a separate appeal against the intimation is not maintainable; another Delhi Bench, held in this library, has held that the two orders are independent and there is no merger, so an adjustment not challenged in time against the intimation cannot be revived later. Because you cannot know which line the bench will take, the only safe course is to appeal the intimation within the thirty days.
**The merger line.** A Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in an order of 31 July 2024 reported as ABCAUS 4179 (2024) (07) ITAT, held that "when the order under Section 143(3) of the Act is passed by the AO, the order of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act naturally got merged with the same and the said order independently lost its force". It followed that the appeal against the intimation was not maintainable - but the Bench gave the assessee liberty to raise the issues arising out of the intimation within the appeal against the s.143(3) order, which is the practical consequence that matters. That report prints no cause title and no appeal number.
Commentary places two High Court decisions on the same line - the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court in C.E.S.C. Ltd. - and a Tribunal decision in South India Club. None of those could be established here: the commentary refuses automated access, neither judgment could be opened, and the leading digest returns no entry for Tamil Nadu Magnesite or for C.E.S.C., and for South India Club returns a different case on a different subject. They are therefore not relied on above and are not cited here as authority.
**The no-merger line.** This library holds Marmo Home, where a Delhi Bench put it that the categories of appealable order are independent of each other and the doctrine of merger does not apply, so an adjustment made at processing had to be challenged in an appeal against the intimation. Two Benches of the same station going opposite ways on the same question is the reason this cannot be treated as settled.
**Which way each line actually cuts.** The labels mislead. On the merger line the intimation ceases to be operative once the assessment is made, so the live order is the assessment and the assessee who never appealed the intimation can attack the adjustment in the appeal against the assessment. On the no-merger line the intimation stood on its own, carried its own thirty days, and an adjustment left unchallenged there is irretrievable. So merger is the assessee's argument here and independence is the Department's, which is the reverse of the way the doctrine usually runs in revision cases.
**A related question with a clearer answer.** Where the scrutiny notice came first and the intimation afterwards, a Bangalore Bench, in an order reported as ABCAUS 5155 (2026) (05) ITAT, held that 'once a notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the assessment proceedings are set in motion under the regular assessment mechanism and thereafter recourse to summary processing u/s 143(1) is not permissible' and deleted the adjustments as without jurisdiction. That is carried by a single report, which prints no cause title, and it is not held here as a case entry.
**What to do while the point is open.** Appeal the intimation inside the thirty days; that removes the question. If the period has gone, do three things rather than one. Ask the officer in the scrutiny, in writing, to deal with the processing adjustment on merits and put the request on the record - a Bangalore Bench, in an order reported as ABCAUS 4467 (2025) (03) ITAT, allowed a processing adjustment to be examined in the s.143(3) proceedings, saying that 'The object for making the adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is to determine the income and tax liability correctly as per the provisions of law', and a Varanasi Bench, in an order reported as ABCAUS 5122 (2026) (04) ITAT, held that the officer 'was not justified in assessing the income of the assesse as per ITR processed by CPC Bangalore u/s 143(1)(a) without giving effect to the rectification application u/s 154'. Take the point in the appeal against the assessment as well, pleading in the alternative that the intimation merged - the Delhi Bench that found merger expressly left that route open. And keep s.264 in reserve, because the Commissioner's power is not shut by an appeal that was never filed.
Whether an unappealed processing adjustment is recoverable decides how much of the file is still live, and it decides it before any argument on the deduction. A practitioner who assumes merger and waits for the scrutiny assessment may find the bench following the independent-orders line and holding that the adjustment had to be challenged when it was made. The prudent course costs one appeal and removes the risk entirely.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
A binding decision that covers my point was never considered when my order was passed. Is that a mistake apparent from the record?
The Assessing Officer wants to tax what my client received on redemption of stock appreciation rights granted by the foreign parent as a perquisite. Is there Supreme Court authority on this?
My settlement application was admitted years before the Commission passed its final order — can it charge me section 234B interest for that whole period, and reopen the settled order later to add interest it forgot?
The Income-tax Officer examined witnesses behind my back and used their statements against me. Is that material evidence at all?
The assessment order charges interest under s.215 (or s.217, or s.139(8)). Can I appeal against the interest, and if not, how do I get it reduced?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.