ITAT Upholds Reassessment Against Sonu Sood in Loan Entry Case

Case Details: Sonu Pankaj Shakti Sagar Sood vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 322 (Mumbai-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member & Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member
Tanzil R. Padvekar & Bhavik Chheda, Advs. for the Appellant.
Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, an actor engaged in professional acting and brand endorsements, was subjected to reassessment proceedings pursuant to a search conducted under section 132. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on a statement recorded under section 131, alleging that the unsecured loans received by the assessee were accommodation entries routed through conduit entities.

The assessee contended that the issue of unsecured loans had already been examined during the original scrutiny proceedings, and the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion. It was further submitted that all loans were received and repaid through banking channels, and no incriminating material evidencing cash transactions was found during the search.

The matter then reached the Mumbai Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the reopening was made under the deeming provision of Explanation 2(ii) of section 148, which provides for reopening in cases where a search has been conducted. While it is true that a previous assessment concluded the issue, the subsequent search action brought to light the statement of a third party, recorded under section 131.

In the said statement, a specific modus operandi was confessed, implicating the assessee in the procurement of bogus loans in exchange for cash. This constitutes “new tangible material” that was not available to the AO during the original assessment. The discovery of fresh evidence that fundamentally alters the complexion of the facts precludes the application of the “change of opinion” doctrine. Reopening based on new information discovered post-assessment does not constitute a ‘change of opinion’ but rather a discovery of escapement. Accordingly, jurisdictional requirements under sections 147/148 were satisfied.

List of Cases Reviewed

Pr. CIT v. Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat) (para 11.3)
Pr. CIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27/[2023] 290 Taxman 471 (Gujarat) (para 11.3)
CCIT (OSD)/Pr. CIT, Central-2 v. Bhupendra Champaklal Delal [2024] 160 taxmann.com 560 (Bombay) (para 11.3)
Dy. CIT v. Hetal Nitin Shah [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1618 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 11.3)
Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (para 11.3) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

J. K. Global v. ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 3)
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) (para 5.1)
Pr. CIT (Central) v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) [2021] 432 ITR 384 (Delhi) (para 7)
Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399/293 Taxman 141/454 ITR 212 (SC) (para 7.1)
CIT (Central) v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) (para 7.1)
CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR 645 (Bombay) (para 7.1)
Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. ACIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 896 (Lucknow – Trib.) (para 7.2)
Rosha Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 622 (Chandigarh – Trib.) (para 7.9)
BMS Sales (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1199 (Kol.) of 2025, dated 2-1-2026] (para 7.9)
CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117/331 ITR 236 (Bombay) (para 7.11)
Pr. CIT v. Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat) (para 10.10)
Dy. CIT v. Hetal Nitin Shah [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1618 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 10.10)
CCIT (OSD)/Pr. CIT, Central-2 v. Bhupendra Champaklal Delal [2024] 160 taxmann.com 560 (Bombay) (para 10.10)
Pr. CIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27/[2023] 290 Taxman 471 (Gujarat) (para 10.10)
Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (para 10.13).