revenue is in appeal against order of AAC, B Range, Bareilly dated 12-3-1984 whereby penalty of Rs. 12,500 imposed by ITO under section 271(1) (c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was deleted. matter relates to assessment year 1977-78. 2. number of facts giving rise to present appeal are these: assessee is registered firm. On 3-6-1976, custom authorities had conducted search in business premises of assessee and residential premises of its managing partner Shri Bhagwat Saran. Besides certain other articles primary gold weighing 133.500 gms. valued at Rs. 6,000, new gold ornaments weighing 262.900 gms. valued at Rs. 10,204, new gold ornaments weighing 298.500 gms. valued at Rs. 11,509 and old ornaments weighing 39.310 gms. valued at Rs. 1,814, total Rs. 29,527 were seized by custom authorities. statement of Shri Bhagwat Saran was recorded by such authorities immediately after seizure of said goods and he had stated that said goods are meant for commercial purpose. assessee had failed to explain nature and source of acquisition of said articles and as such, addition under section 69 of Act, was made to tune of Rs. 29,527 and tax was assessed accordingly. assessee had challenged assessment in appeal before AAC but addition was upheld. assessee submitted to addition and did not prefer any second appeal. In penalty proceedings also, ITO had held that assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation about nature and source of acquisition of said gold and ornaments. He, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 12,500. Dissatisfied with that order, assessee went up in appeal before AAC, who by his order dated 12-3-1984 allowed appeal and deleted penalty. Aggrieved by that order, revenue has come up in appeal before us. 3. departmental representative has argued that assessee had failed to discharge burden which lay on it and AAC has committed error in holding otherwise. On other hand, learned counsel for assessee has argued that burden of proof was on department and assessee did not conceal any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars and as such order imposing penalty is unsustanable. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to submissions advanced b y both sides. It is not in dispute that custom authorities had searched premises of assessee and its partners and gold and ornaments already referred about were seized from those premises. It is also undisputed that immediately after search, statement of Shri Bhagwat Saran was recorded by custom authorities and he had stated before them that said gold and ornaments are meant for commercial purpose. In those books of account of assessee there is no mention of said golds or ornaments. As such, heavy burden lies on assessee to prove that it did not conceal its income and it was for him to explain source of acquisition of said articles. We are unable to accept contention of learned counsel for assessee that burden to prove concealment was on department. Explanation 2 to section 271 (1) reads as follows: "Explanation 1: Where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of any person under this Act, - (A) such person fail to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found by Income-tax Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) to be false, or (B) such person offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate then, amount added or disallowed in computing total income of such person as result thereof shall, for purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed:" 5. aforesaid Explanation makes it clear that it is assessee who has to offer explanation and if he offers explanation and same is found to be false or if he is unable to substantiate explanation offered by him then it would be deemed that amount added or disallowed in computing total income of that assessee for purposes of clause (c) of aforesaid sub- section represents income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 6. department representative has pointed out that immediately after seizure Shri Bhagawat Saran had stated that articles in question are kept for commercial purposes and since assessee has failed to explain its source of acquisition, it has been rightly held by ITO that assessee had concealed material fact relating to acquisition of said property. In that connection, assessee's counsel has urged the said gold and ornaments belonged to members of family of Shri Bhagwat Saran. According to assessee, new gold ornaments weighing 262.900 gms. belonged to womenfolk of house of Shri Bhagwat Saran. family of Shri Bhagwat Saran consisted of his two sons and wives and wife of Shri Bhagwat Saran and his mother. explanation of assessee on point was not accepted by ITO and we fell rightly, because at time of search 1339 gms. of gold ornaments were found in bank locker and they were held to be belonged to family of Shri Bhagwat Saran. Moreover, at time of search, Shri Bhagwat Saran did not claim that said ornaments belonged to womenfolk of his family. 7. As regards gold ornaments weighing 298.500 gms. and 39.300 gms., it was urged on behalf of assessee that same belonged to family of Shri Bhagwat Saran. These ornaments were found at shop of assessee. It has been contended that son of Shri Bhagwat Saran was to be married and therefore, ladies of house gave those ornaments to goldsmith for cleaning and polishing, that after polishing and cleaning said ornaments had been received day earlier before seizure. It was also urged that entry about such ornaments finds place in books of Shri Ram Swarup, who is registered goldsmith. This contention of assessee also fails to inspire least degree of confidence. As already observed, Shri Bhagwat Saran had stated immediately after search of premises that ornaments are kept for commercial purposes. That apart record shows that son of Shri Bhagwat Saran was married on 16-2-1981, i.e., about 5 years after search was conducted by custom authorities. In circumstances, it is not possible to believe that ladies of family would have sent their ornaments for cleaning and polishing about 5 years in advance in anticipation of marriage of son of Shri Bhagwat Saran. 8. learned counsel for assessee has also argued that entry about 8. learned counsel for assessee has also argued that entry about said ornaments finds place in register of registered goldsmith, Shri R m Swarup. Entry in such register has been relied upon in support of contention that said ornaments were actually given to goldsmith for polishing and cleaning. entry in that register, in our opinion, has little evidenciary value and much significance cannot be attached to it, because same has not been certified or countersinged by any competent authority. 9. explanation of assessee as regards primary gold weighing 133.500 gms. that wife of Shri Bhagwat Saran gave her ornaments to goldsmith Shri Satya Prakash for manufacturing new ornaments because son of Shri Bhagwat Saran was going to be married shortly and thereafter Shri Satya Prakash had melted old ornaments. It was also contended that all of sudden Shri Satya Prakash had to go out and therefore, he had left melted gold with wife of Shri Bhagwat Saran. This contention also does not appear to be sound. As already observed above, son of Shri Bhagwat Saran was not married shortly after search operations were conducted. Moreover, there was no reason for Shri Satya Prakash to deliver melted gold to wife of Shri Bhagwat Saran ever if he was going out of such gold. It also appears that Shri Satya Prakash had his own arrangements for safe custody. Besides this, register of Shri Satya Prakash, who is said to be registered goldsmith, was not attested by any competent authority and for that reason no reliance could be placed on entries made by him in that register. 10. In view of foregoing reasons, we find ourselves in agreement with contention of departmental representative that assessee had failed to discharge burden which lay on it and AAC has wrongly held that he had succeeded in discharging onus by showing entries in accounts of goldsmiths and as such, penalty could not be imposed. As already held above, no reliance can be placed on entries of said goldsmiths. Thus, AAC has committed error in deleting penalty. 11. learned counsel for assessee has argued that assessment proceedings and proceedings before custom authorities stand at different footing and orders passed in such proceedings cannot form basis for imposition of penalty by ITO. proposition of law is undoubtedly sound but we find that same is of no assistance to assessee. In instant case, order imposing penalty passed by ITO is not based on orders passed by customs authorities or on order passed in assessment proceedings. His order is based on his independent findings. Reference to orders of custom authorities and assessment proceedings has been made only incidentally. It would be appropriate to mention here that order passed in such proceedings have probative value and they can be looked into for incidental purposes. 12. It was also argued on behalf of assessee that Shri Bhagwat Saran h d made his statement before custom authorities under duress and coercion and, therefore, ITO should not have placed any reliance on same. We are not impressed by these arguments as well. There is nothing on record to substantiate allegation that said statement was made under duress or had been obtained under coercion. Paper No. 21 of assessee's paper book is copy of order of Deputy Collector of Central Excise whereby penalty was imposed on Shri Bhagwat Saran for possessing said gold and ornaments. perusal of that order goes to suggest that in such proceedings Shri Bhagwat Saran had been claiming that said articles had kept by him for commercial purposes and he did also did not claim that said articles belonged to membbers of his family. He also did not claim that his statement was obtained under duress or coercion. Paper No. 29 of assessee's paper book is copy of order passed in appeal by Collector of Central Excise. It shows that plea to effect that statement of Shri Bhagwat Saran was recorded under duress at time of seizure was raised for first time at appellate stage. fact that such plea was not raised before Deputy Collector is suggestive of fact that it is result of afterthought and is without any substance. It may also be mentioned that it is settled principle of jurisprudence that admission is best evidence that opposing party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, is decisive of matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. In instance case, assessee has failed to withdraw said admission successfully and from circumstances available on record it could not be proved that same is erroneous. erroneous. 13. It was also contended on behalf of assessee that other partners of firm are not bound by statement made by Shri Bhagwat Saran. We find n o force in this argument as well. It is not in dispute that Shri Bhagwat Saran was partner of assessee-firm. It is well settled that partner is agent of firm and acts of partner are binding on firm. 14. learned counsel for assessee has also argued that ITO did not examine assessee or any of goldsmiths and without examining them he was not entitled to reject written submissions which had been submitted by assessee. We are unable to accept that argument as well. Nothing could be pointed out which may suggest that it was incumbent on ITO to examine assessee or goldsmiths. 15. For reasons discussed above, we allow appeal. order of AAC is set aside and that of ITO is restored. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. BHAIRO PRASAD BHAGWAT SARAN