“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Aggarwal v. NFAC

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC

157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Amserve Consultants Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1440/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargamserve Consultants Ltd. Vs. Acit 15Th Floor, Eros Corporate Circle – 1(1) Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 002 New Delhi-110 019 Pan No. Aaeca 8626 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv., Shri Utkarsh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Tarun Chanan, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 244ASection 254

GARG, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Although, the assessee has raised as many as seven grounds in this appeal but except ground

Amrik Sokhi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1509/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv

Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

The Athani Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Athani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 90/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017- 2018, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2021-22/1040738436(1), dated 15.03.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 12th October, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT, concerned. 5. D.R. ITAT – Panaji Bench, Panaji. 6. Guard File. //By Order

Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 40

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), dated 13.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia Income Tax Officer, 704-B/Riddhi Siddhi Apartment, [International Taxation], Surat, Vs. Halar Road, Valsad-396001 107 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hajira Road, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvpr 5835 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 30.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.12.2018. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening Of Assessee’S Assessment U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of I.T Act. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Uphold Addition Of Rs.9,00,000/- Out Of A.O’S Addition Of Rs.11,00,000/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Assessee’S Bank Account With Central Bank Of India Ignoring The Evidences & Facts That Assessee’S Father Has Withdrawn Cash From The Said Bank Account Prior To Make Deposit.”

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.516/SRT/2023

Chandrakant Gulabbhai Patel, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.475/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandrakant Gulabbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Near Ramjimandir, Utadi Road, Ward-1, Valsad Vs At & Post Dungri, Valsad-396375 Nilkanthpatelatel@Gmail.Com Pan No: Anupp 8675 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)/(NFAC)] was not justified and grossly erred in dismissing the appeal which is bad-in-law and against

The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Bachat and Dhiran Sahkari Mandali Limited, 2017-18 vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.472/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Vharuch, Income Tax Office, Vs. Bachat & Dhiran Sahkari Harikunj, Station Road, Mandali Ltd. Pandorimata Bharuch-356 069 Society Nr. Court, Chikda Road, Taluka: Dediapda, Dist. Narmada-393040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadat 6688 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 27.11.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT[A], NFAC, has erred in law and on facts to confirm Assessing Officer's assessment u/s 144 ignoring the fact that he has not provided adequate opportunity ... being heard prior to finalise assessment u/s 144 on 27.11.2019, though the limitation period expired on 31.12.2019. 2. Ld. CIT(A). NFAC, has erred in law and on facts to confirm AO's addition u/s 69A of the Act for Rs.41,31,910/- ignoring the fact that the assessee

Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), dated 11.10.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... Centre dated 11.10.2022. There is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before Honorable Tribunal against the order passed by CIT(A), NFAC dated 11.10.2022. 2. My father Mr. Arunbhai Patel has been working in the Gulf and mostly residing outside India and we do not have

Shri Chhitubhi Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.224/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chhitubhai Jagubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kanbi Faliya, At & Po Kholwad, 1(2)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs Taluka, Kamrej, Surat-394109 Bhavan, Room No.121, 1St Pan No. Brlpp 7388 D Floor, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Sanjay Gurdasmal Chawla, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2387/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjaygurdasmalchawla, Vs. Acit – 21 1301, Lake Superior 2Nd Floor, Piramal Phase No. 5, As Marg Chamber, Lalbaug, Chandivali Farm Road, Lower Parel, Powai- Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400076. Pan/Gir No. : Abopc7669L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish Trivedi.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule.CIT DR

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /CIT (A) passed u/sec143(3) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The original appeal for A.Y. 2013-2014 was finally

Global Waste Management Cell Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2041/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalglobalwastemanagement Vs. Centralized Processing Cell Pvt.Ltd, Centre(Cpc), 1St, Floor, Room No. Postbox.No.01, 20/21 10, Atul Niwas, Electronic City, 7Th Ketwadi, Bengaluru-560500. Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. : Aacg4780E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule. CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi /CIT (A) passed u/sec 143(1) and U/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 41/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, The Ld. AO(CPC) and consequently the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has added back Rs.52,35,353/- (Rs.65,25,759/- for AY 2019-20) u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act on the basis that employee ... No.41/Del/2023:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, The Ld. AO(CPC) and consequently the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has added back Rs.5,57,191/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act on the basis that employee’s contribution to the extent was deposited after

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Prakul Luthra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 234ASection 43B

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 10.01.2023 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That having regard to the facts

Anu Jain, Moradabad vs. ACIT-1, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2399/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, C. A

assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred I.T.A. No. 2399/Del/2023 to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] Delhi, dated 14.07.2023 for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the appeal of the assessee

Rama Social Reforms Educational Society, Meerut vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2359/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raja Kumar

assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred I.T.A. No. 2359/Del/2023 to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] dated 23.06.2023 for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the appeal was disposed

Neeta Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2337/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred I.T.A. No. 2337/Del/2023 to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] Delhi, dated 19.06.2023 for assessment year 2019-20 in denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to the assessee. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that ... case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC ITA No.680/Bang./2022 06.09.2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated

Coils & Transformer India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2316/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 270A

assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred I.T.A. No. 2316/Del/2023 to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] Delhi, dated 21.06.2023 for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that this appeal is filed against

Heidelberg Cement India Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Gurugram

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2287/DEL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Arya, Advocate

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. Nos. 2285 TO 2287/Del/2023 Centre [NFAC] dated 12.06.2023 for assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2015-16 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income ... Appellant had belief that he is eligible to claim additional depreciation and same was given as the explanation to the AO and the NFAC. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant had offered a bona fide explanation and it is also undisputed that the Appellant had made complete disclosure