The Madras High Court dismissed TVK chief Vijay’s writ petition challenging an income tax penalty of Rs 1.50 crore imposed for alleged non-disclosure of additional income during the 2015–16 financial year.
The petition was filed in 2022.
On Friday, February 6, Tamil actor-politician Vijay walked away from the Madras High Court without the relief he had sought. His petition, which questioned a notice issued by the income tax department, was dismissed. With that, the penalty of Rs 1.5 crore imposed on him was allowed to stand.
The fine traces back to the financial year 2015–16. The income tax department had accused Vijay of not disclosing income amounting to Rs 15 crore, and the penalty followed.
The matter was heard by a single judge, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, who had reserved his verdict on January 23, 2026. In its order, the court said the show cause notice was issued within the prescribed time limit under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Observing that there was no deficiency in the manner in which the notice was issued, the court declined to examine other aspects of the case, effectively allowing the income tax department’s penalty order to stand.
The case arose from income tax searches conducted at Vijay’s residence in September 2015. An assessment order was subsequently passed in December 2017, followed by the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act in December 2018.
Vijay challenged the assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who partly accepted his case. The department then carried the matter to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly ruled in its favour, including on certain expenses linked to Vijay’s fan association.
Separately, penalty proceedings continued in respect of the Rs 15 crore surrendered during the search. In July 2019, the department issued a notice under Section 263 seeking revision of the assessment on the ground that the penalty proceedings had not been properly initiated. This revision order was set aside by the ITAT in May 2022, which held that no further proceedings were warranted once penalty proceedings had already been initiated.
When the matter came up before the High Court, the focus shifted to a narrower issue, namely whether the final penalty order had been passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. At an interim stage, another bench of the court had found that the order appeared to be barred by limitation and had stayed recovery of the penalty on that basis. In its final decision, the court held that the show cause notice was issued within the stipulated time limit and found no deficiency in the manner in which it was issued, leading it to refrain from examining other aspects of the case.
