CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by actor and leader of Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam, Vijay, challenging an order of the Income Tax Department imposing a penalty of Rs 1.50 crore for allegedly not disclosing his true income during the assessment period 2015–2016.
While filing his Income Tax return for the assessment year 2015–2016, actor Vijay declared an income of Rs 35.42 crore for the relevant financial year.
During the assessment proceedings, the Income Tax Department, after comparing the return with documents seized during a search conducted at Vijay's residence in 2015, found that an income of Rs 15 crore received for the film ‘Puli’ had not been disclosed.
Consequently, the Income Tax Department passed an order on June 30, 2022, imposing a penalty of Rs 1.50 crore for concealment of income.
Aggrieved by the penalty order, actor Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the Income Tax Department's action.
While entertaining the petition, the High Court had earlier granted an interim stay of the impugned penalty order.
The final hearing of the case came up before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
During the hearing, counsel for Vijay submitted that, as per the law, the penalty order ought to have been passed on or before June 30, 2019. Since the order was issued belatedly in 2022, it was contended that the same was liable to be set aside.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the order imposing the penalty was within the time limit and that there was no infirmity to interfere with it.
Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department argued that the penalty imposed was in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Department, therefore, sought dismissal of the petition. The judge had reserved orders on January 23 after hearing the arguments from both sides.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed the petition filed on Friday by Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay.
In his order, the judge said the order imposing the penalty was within the time limit and that there was no infirmity to interfere with it. Hence, the petition was dismissed, the judge added.
On a request made on behalf of Vijay by his counsel to grant liberty to challenge the order, the judge said it was open to the petitioner to assail the order before the appellate authority.
(With Online Desk inputs)