← All Phrases

“jewellery found during search”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132146 judgments

The decision most relied on for jewellery found during search is Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (337 ITR 399), cited in 252 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on jewellery found during search

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO
337 ITR 399 · 2011 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In search assessments under section 153A, a notice under section 143(2) is not required if a notice under section 153A(1)(a) has been issued. Modest or customary jewellery, commensurate with age and status, found during a search, especially if it is 'Stridhan' or falls within CBDT guidelines, cannot be added as unexplained income.

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain
339 ITR 351 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

Jewellery found within the CBDT prescribed limits (500g for married women, 250g for unmarried women, 100g for men) cannot be seized, even if not fully explained. However, its value can be added as undisclosed income under Section 69B if the taxpayer fails to prove its source.

Chadha v. ITO
202 Taxmann 395 · 2011 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Jewellery found during a search that is adequately explained as being owned by a married lady for a long time, even without documentary evidence, should not be added to income, as this recognizes realities of life.

CIT v. Satya Narain Patni
46 Taxmann.com 440 · 2014 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Jewellery found in possession, to the extent permitted by Instruction No. 1916 (which exempts up to 100 gms of gold for unmarried male members), cannot be treated as an undisclosed investment.

Revenue. In Asstt.CIT v. Ramesh Chandra R. Patel
89 ITD 203 · 2004 · ITAT
32
citing judgments

Jewellery within prescribed limits, especially that received during marriage, is presumed explained even if found during a search, based on CBDT instructions. The revenue cannot treat such jewellery as unexplained income simply because it was found.

449 (Madras), Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT
122 ITR 926 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Unexplained jewellery found during a search can be added to income, even if the assessee claims it was received back against purchase bills, especially when part of the unaccounted cash is deposited in the bank.

Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
400 ITR 120 · 2018 · High Court
18
citing judgments

When assessing a partnership firm, the Assessing Officer can inquire into the source of credits introduced by partners, but cannot be compelled to investigate the 'source of the source' of those partners' funds under Section 68.

Vibhu Aggarwal v. DCIT
122 ITR 14 · 1980 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider the status, customs, and traditions of a family when appreciating the source of jewellery found during a search.

Judgments citing jewellery found during search

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 923/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 921/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 920/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3285/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6610/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6608/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6605/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6604/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,08,342/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery found during search and seizure action without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim ... granting the relief on the issue has observed as under: “7.3 The AR of the appellant submitted that substantiating evidence for explaining the jewellery found during search was duly filed before the assessing officer, whereas in the assessment order it has been stated that no evidence was filed. In order

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 821/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 821/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Abs Tower, Vs. Central Circle-3, Old Padra Road, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat Pan: Aaact 6737 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.01.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,23,80,013/- (Rs.31,24,113/- Found From Locker No. 1483 Of Bank Of Baroda + Rs. 92,55,900/- Found From Locker No.430 Of Royal Bank Of Scotland) Made On Account Of Unexplained Jewellery Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Source Of Investment & Also Could Not Submit The Documentary Evidences Regarding The Source Of Jewellery Like Purchase Bills, Vouchers Etc. Dcit Vs. Tash Investment Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

disclosed in the Wealth Tax Returns only. We completely agree with ld. CIT(A) that it is preposterous to hold that such identical jewellery found during search as different from that disclosed in the Wealth Tax Returns when there is no jewellery found during search identical in all terms with ... Valuer or on account of his conclusion of last operation of two lockers in Bank of Baroda. 28. With respect to the unmatched jewellery found during search, we agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that credit should be given of the unmatched jewellery disclosed in the Wealth Tax Returns

Antony Leo Sequeira, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2010/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri Om Kandalkar , Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2970/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2815/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2589/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2588/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2040/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2039/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad vs. Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2038/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1865/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page

Kiran Pal Singh, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1864/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1861/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Ita No. 1863/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2015-16) Ita No. 1865/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ita No. 2589/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Kiran Pal Singh Vs. Dcit House No. 453, Sector- Central Circle 9, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana-121001 Pan: Akmpp5108N Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69Section 9

account of list of exchange of jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) has on wrong facts confirmed the addition without appreciating the fact that jewellery found during search is the same and no fresh purchase have been made. Copy of the valuation report is submitted and is marked as page