Stock register omission alone does not justify rejection of accounts when the overall record and explanation remain credible.

Mere non-maintenance of a stock register does not automatically justify rejection of account books or resort to best judgment assessment. The governing rule is fact-specific: the tax authority must consider the totality of the record, including the surrounding books of account and the assessee's explanation, before treating the accounts as unreliable. Where the final fact-finding authority accepts the explanation as plausible and no inconsistency is found in the recorded transactions, interference is not warranted. On the facts noted, the account books could not be rejected solely because a stock register was not maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the mere non-maintenance of a stock register, by itself, justified rejection of the assessee's account books and resort to best judgment assessment.

Analysis: The statutory provisions requiring proper maintenance of accounts and stock particulars do not lay down an inflexible rule that absence of a stock register, in every case and by itself, mandates rejection of the books. The question remains one of fact in each case, and the surrounding account books and explanations may still satisfy the requirement. Where the final fact-finding authority accepts the assessee's explanation as plausible and no inconsistency in the recorded transactions is found, interference in further revision is not warranted.

Conclusion: Mere non-maintenance of a stock register was not sufficient, on the facts found, to reject the account books or to interfere with the order accepting the assessee's explanation.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-maintenance of a stock register is not per se ative of rejection of accounts; the decisive question is whether, on the totality of the record, the assessee's accounts and explanation are credible and satisfactory.

---