Chennai: Kollywood top actor C Joseph Vijay, who is preparing for his first electoral battle with his coinage of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam as a “pure force” as opposed to the “evil force” (DMK) and “corrupt force” (AIADMK), on Friday lost a legal battle against a Rs 1.5 crore imposed by the Income Tax Department for non disclosure of an additional income of Rs 15 crore during the financial year 2015-16.
Tax Case
The Madras High Court dismissed his petition to set aside the IT penalty taking note of the fact that the actor had disclosed the additional income and paid taxes for it only after a search and seizure operation by the Department on September 30, 2015. He did not disclose it voluntarily. The court held the penalty order had been issued within the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act.
Vijay now has the option of challenging the penalty before the appellate authority on grounds other than “limitation”.
During the hearing on his petition, the counsel for the IT Department argued that the actor would not have disclosed the additional income but for the search operation.
Film Link
Originally, the IT Department had conducted search operations at the premises of P T Selvakumar (he joined the DMK recently) and Shibu of SKT Studios, who had produced Vijay’s 2015 film Puli. During this search, it came to light they had paid Vijay Rs 4.93 crore cash and Rs 16 crore through cheques but they deposited TDS only for the cheque payment. On being confronted with this information, the actor agreed to pay tax for the money received in cash. Though he claimed to have received only Rs 4.93 crore in cash, he volunteered to disclose a total additional income of Rs 15 crore for the financial year 2015-16 and pay tax for the same. It was after this the IT Department imposed the penalty on him on June 30, 2022.
However, Vijay’s counsel argued that the Department should have levied the penalty before June 30, 2019. He contended the limitation period would begin from the date when the Assessing Officer refers a matter to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
However, the court rejected his argument and dismissed his case.
