assessee and Revenue are in cross-appeals before us against common order of learned CIT(A), dt. 21st Dec., 2006 passed for asst. yrs. 1993- 94 and 1994-95. solitary grievance of assessee in both appeals relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year whereas grievance of Revenue is that learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 59,316 and Rs. 3,80,296 in asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95. This is third round of litigation before Tribunal. brief facts are that assessee, individual, had filed application under VDIS, 1997 on 30th Dec., 1997 along with affidavit declaring undisclosed income in form of cash to tune of Rs. 10 lakhs for asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. After this disclosure, assessee somehow could not deposit tax in respect of income declared in VDIS. Consequently, no benefit of VDIS w s admissible to assessee. Since, assessee failed to pay tax, learned AO took declaration as information and formed opinion that this much of income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, he issued notice under s. 148 of Act which was served upon assessee on 20th April, 2001. In response to notice, assessee filed his return declaring nil income. Learned AO framed assessment under s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) of Act and determined taxable income at Rs. 10 lakhs each in both assessment years. Appeal to CIT(A) did not bring any relief to assessee. Dissatisfied with above, assessee carried matter in appeal before Tribunal vide ITA Nos. 4228 and 4330/Del/2003 in asst. yrs. 1990-91, 1993- 94 and 1994-95. He challenged reopening of assessment. Tribunal has decided appeal of assessee vide its order dt. 30th June, 2004 whereby reopening has been upheld. Somehow it appears that Tribunal did not adjudicate issue on merit. It only decided reopening of issue. Hence, issue on merit was again considered by Tribunal vide its order dt. 13th Dec., 2004 in ITA Nos. 4229 and 4230/Del/2003. Tribunal has set aside issue to file of AO for readjudication because in opinion of Tribunal, additions have been made merely on basis of declaration made by assessee. Apart from this declaration, no other independent evidence was gathered by AO for arriving at conclusion that assessee has income of Rs. 10 lakhs each in asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 for charging tax. In pursuance of Tribunal s order, learned AO directed assessee to produce details in respect of his bank account, books of account, etc. According to AO, assessee failed to submit requisite details and was also unable to demonstrate that he has not earned Rs. 10 lakhs each in these two assessment years. He also failed to prove that no cash is available. It emerges out from assessment orders that assessee has disclosed his savings bank account to AO but could not produce details of account. Learned AO called for information from bank and came to know that sum of Rs. 59,316 h s been deposited in asst. yr. 1993-94 and sum of Rs. 3,80,296 was deposited in asst. yr. 1994-95. He directed assessee to explain source of these sums deposited in bank account. In response to query of AO, it was contended that these sums had been received by assessee from his partnership concern. However, assessee failed to substantiate this explanation with any documentary evidence. He expressed his inability on ground that more than 12 years have expired hence it is quite difficult for him to give details from where these sums had come to him. Learned AO apart from disclosure made by assessee made additions of these two sums. In this way, he determined taxable income in asst. yr. 1993-94 at Rs. 10,59,316 whereas in asst. yr. 1994-95, he determined taxable income at Rs. 13,80,296. On appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year for reasons that assessee has made admission and he could not disprove his admission. As far as amount found in bank account and added by AO are concerned, learned CIT(A) granted telescoping on ground that amounts declared in VDIS were available with assessee in form of cash he must have used that amount in making deposit with bank. In this way, he deleted these two additions in asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. Revenue is aggrieved with this deletion whereas assessee is aggrieved with confirmation of addition. Before us, learned counsel for assessee reiterated his contentions as were raised before Revenue authorities below. He submitted that except VDIS declaration, no other information was collected by AO for arriving at conclusion that assessee has income of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year. H e emphasized that this declaration has no sanctity in law because assessee did not pay tax and he wanted to withdraw declaration. He has given withdrawal letter to tax consultant who filed those letters on 3rd Jan., 1998. Referring to Tribunal s order dt. 30th June, 2004, vide which reopening of assessment has been upheld. He contended that Tribunal has considered scope of VDIS and has observed that s. 71 provides that nothing contained in declaration shall be admissible as evidence against declarant for purposes of proceedings relating to imposition of penalty or for purpose of prosecution under IT and WT Acts. According to learned counsel, declaration made by assessee has been withdrawn and, therefore, that alone cannot be made basis for construing that assessee has income chargeable to tax at Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year. On other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied upon order of Revenue authorities below. She emphasized that not only assessee has made declaration but also filed affidavit to effect that cash of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year is available with him. If this cannot be treated as evidence of income than what more AO can bring on record. Self-admission is best evidence. Therefore, additions deserve to be confirmed. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through records carefully. No doubt, with view to avail benefit of VDIS, 1997, assessee has filed declaration disclosing income of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year. According to assessee, there was going to be family settlement in respect of ancestral agricultural land. He was expecting certain on money and deem it fit to disclose this to Department. Somehow that could not materialize. He could not comply with declaration. He applied for withdrawal of declaration. crucial question before us is alleged retracted declaration can be considered as conclusive proof of income chargeable to tax. In second round of litigation, Tribunal was not satisfied with this evidence and, therefore, set aside issue to file of AO with direction to collect some more evidence for corroboration. AO failed to collect any evidence. In way, he put onus upon assessee to demonstrate that no income was available with assessee. In our opinion, it is quite difficult to prove negative. No doubt, assessee has made admission of income. It is true that admission being declaration against interest which is good evidence but to our mind that cannot be conclusive and person who is making admission would always be at liberty to withdraw admission by proving that admission was either mistaken, untrue or under some misconception of facts. In law, retracted confession even may form legal basis of addition, if AO is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But basing addition on retracted declaration solely would not be safe. It is not strict rule of law but is only rule of prudence. As general practice, it is unsafe to rely upon retracted confession without corroborative evidence. For charging assessee with tax liability, it is duty of AO to prove that assessee has income chargeable to tax. This onus is to be discharged by AO with positive evidence. This declaration at most in present form can be information for starting of investigation but it cannot be substituted with evidence. AO took it as conclusive proof of income. To our mind, this information required corroboration for arriving at conclusion as arrived by AO. At time of hearing, learned Departmental Representative pointed out that what evidence, AO can collect? We are of opinion that AO is best Judge to consider what type of investigation he can undertake. He is trained person, he can call for information with help of machinery available to him from neighbourhood. He could have called for information from local estate office about immovable property of assessee if any owned by him. There are so many ways if effectively used can help AO to ascertain income of assessee. But instead of adopting any such step of things, he only concluded that assessee could not disprove income of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year. In way, AO has presumed income on basis of declaration made by assessee. In view of above discussion, we are of opinion that there is no evidence on record which can suggest that assessee had earned income of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year which is to be taxed. Therefore, we allow both appeals of assessee. As far as appeals of Revenue are concerned, assessee could not explain credit entry appearing in bank statement. learned CIT(A) only granted benefit of telescoping. moment we deleted addition of Rs. 10 lakhs in each assessment year than this addition of Rs. 59,316 and Rs. 3,80,296 would be reviewed and these additions are to be confirmed. Consequently, appeals of Revenue are also allowed. In result, all appeals are allowed. *** Rakesh Gupta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-24(3)