Income Tax Department Opposes Actor Vijay’s Plea Against Rs 1.5 Crore Penalty

In a significant legal development, actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay is facing opposition from the Income Tax (I-T) department over his challenge to a penalty of Rs 1.5 crore for allegedly failing to declare Rs 15 crore of income during the 2015-16 assessment year. The matter is currently being heard in the Madras High Court.

During the proceedings before Justice C Saravanan, the senior standing counsel for the I-T department, AP Srinivas, argued that the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act was correctly levied and insisted that Vijay’s writ petition challenging it be dismissed. The counsel maintained that the department had followed proper procedures in imposing the penalty.

Vijay’s legal team, however, contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by the limitation period. They argued that the proceedings should have been initiated by June 30, 2019, rather than on June 30, 2022, highlighting a three-year delay in initiating the process. In response, the court asked the petitioner’s counsel to produce, by October 10, 2025, a verdict from a similar case related to limitation periods, which could potentially influence the court’s decision.

The penalty was imposed after the I-T department alleged that Vijay had failed to disclose additional income of Rs 15 crore during the specified assessment year. The actor, through his legal team, has challenged the penalty, maintaining that procedural lapses in initiating the penalty proceedings render it invalid.

The Madras High Court is scheduled to revisit the matter and deliver its verdict on October 10, 2025, which will determine whether the penalty imposed on the popular actor stands or is set aside based on the limitation argument.

This case has drawn significant attention, not only because of Vijay’s celebrity status but also due to the legal implications concerning limitation periods in tax penalty proceedings. The outcome may set a precedent for similar cases involving delayed initiation of penalty actions by the I-T department.