Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that ; there was no findingby the AO that the books of accounts were not correctly maintained. The mere non-maintenance of the stock register cannot form the basis of rejection of the Assessee’s books of accounts. As rightly pointed out by the Assessee, although a separate stock register may not have been maintained, a physical verification of the stock on yearly basis was undertaken and was reflected in the balance sheet of the Assessee. In a large number of decisions, including Pandit Bros v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 (Punj. & Har.)(HC) Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 13 (Bom.)(HC) and S. Veeriah Reddiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker.)( HC ), it has been held that the mere non- maintenance of stock register would not lead to the conclusion that profit of the Assessee could not be determined on the basis of the books of accounts maintained by it. (AY. 1999-2000)