NEW DELHI: In a setback to actor-turned-politician Vijay, who is leading TVK’s political debut in the Tamil Nadu elections, the Madras high court on Monday admitted a plea seeking an Income Tax probe into his asset declarations.While hearing the matter, the court orally observed a discrepancy of over Rs 100 crore in the affidavit and issued notice in the case.“This is an irregularity. More than 100 crores has not been disclosed”, the court orally remarked as per LiveLaw.A Bench comprising chief justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to Vijay, along with the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Returning Officers for the Perambur and Tiruchirappalli (East) constituencies.The petition has been filed by V Vignesh of Chennai. In his plea, he has pointed out alleged inconsistencies in the affidavits submitted by Vijay before the Returning Officers of the Trichy (East) and Perambur constituencies. He contends that the records reflect multiple discrepancies, which, according to him, raise serious questions and establish a prima facie case for a detailed inquiry by the Director General of Income Tax.The petitioner has alleged that the disappearance of a high-value asset amounts to a clear case of suppression of assets, raising serious concerns regarding beneficial ownership, routing of funds, and the concealment of material particulars. It has further been contended that such a discrepancy between declarations cannot be attributed to a clerical error or approximation. According to the plea, the only reasonable inference is that either one of the affidavits is false or the corresponding corporate filings are inaccurate, thereby warranting a thorough investigation in either scenario.If such irregularities are ultimately established, the consequences could be dire. Any proven concealment or false declaration in election affidavits may invite criminal proceedings under applicable laws, potentially leading to fines or imprisonment, and could also result in disqualification from contesting elections under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Additionally, discrepancies involving undisclosed assets may trigger action by the Income Tax authorities, including penalties and possible prosecution for tax violations.