There is a problem with the figure. Every time that I tried to download it, an error occur. Please, can you download it again?

Thanks.

Ok I will do that. It is  easily getting download  here. Any way please provide me your mail id I will send it . I am again attaching image here.

Thank You.

Thank you for sending me the photograph again.

I  feel very uneasy doing identifications based on photographs, especially when they illustrate poor preservation. Going to your photograph: If you look directly up, above number 2 in the scale, you will see the circuli in an incomplete preserved cycloid scale. This type of scales is unique to teleosts; but under the present preservation, to say something more it would be too risky. I suggest that you give a look to one on my papers in my profile in RG (Complexities .... published in Copeia) that is the first one among my features papers in this moment. There you will find an explanation about cycloid scales as a teleostean character, but also you will find references that could help you concerning scale's structure..

I hope that this could be of some help.

With mys best wishes.

Difficult to say due to structural of sedimentary or fossils.

Dear 

In the red circle, I think scotches are scarification.

Thanks  Madam Gloria Arratia for informative  input . It is really very very helpful  for me.

Thanks  again.

I dont think it as a fossil of fossil prints. It appears to be some petroglyphs. You should consult some archaeologist to confirm it. It could be a big discovery If it turns out to be of prehistoric age because most of the ancient carvings on the rock surface are reported from southern India. There are some ancient rock art reported from Tibet, to which you can correlate. 

Danish Anwar, thanks for input but it is imprints of fish (bony fish) see the homogeneous nature of circuli  that is one characteristic feature.  It is not any petroglyphs for sure .   

but there are no hard part like bone or skull preserved. if u look closely, there are sharp cuttings by the use of tool

The scale is preserved in hard compact limestone and it  between the rock . it i s not sharp cutting by tool 

in photograph, it apears as an assilina bearing limestone where  most of the chambers are filled by secondary calcite. so tell me how this mark survived the diagenetic alteration. if it is a fossil of the same age then similar material should b filled within the carvings but somehow it looks like freshly carved.

If I correctly understood the original message ...  it says something that we should give some attention: "This fossil remains has been discovered from limestone section associated larger benthic foraminifers pointing middle Eocene age. "  Are you suggesting that the age  (middle Eocene) assigned using foraminifera  is wrong?  [A fossil fish can be identified by scales, depending on the structure of the scale. Certainly, the addition of bones, especially the skull or caudal endoskeleton, could permit a more precise taxonomic identification to family, genus or even species level than just to say fish.] 

Additionally, if this would have been done by prehistoric men, the age would be quite different and considerably younger. Thus, the next question would be: How accurate the determination of the age as Eocene is? 

1. Age of limestone, middle Eocene  has been assigned on the basis of associated  larger benthic foraaminifers (LBF)  assemblage such as Nummulites beaumonti, N. perforatus Nummulites beaumonti, Nummulites atacicus, Assilina cancellata, Alveolina oblonga, Alveolina elliptica, Discocyclina dispansa so  there is no confusion about age Eocene.

2. See the above scale 1-2  at some  places LBF is also present in between Scale suggesting the synchronous relation and clearly  all possibility so called  prehistoric.. 

The  cracks, partition  are post  depositional as earlier I said limestone is very hard compact and when one can  hit  with hammer over it breaks  in  forms of smaller chip so fresh surface  above 4-5 is  because of breaking...parting.

3. Danish Assilina is not filled with secondary calcite basically the large specimen got weathered due to water percolation through cracks, leaving illusive impression in photographs  easily one can convince when see the specimen.

RE 2. See the above scale 1-2  at some  places LBF is also present in between Scale suggesting the synchronous relation and clearly rule out  all possibility so called  prehistoric..

This is another  photograph of same place ...See the   inside the red portion ...it  looks like Caudal (? )  when you see it very closely through  lens  but when I  tried to dig out unfortunately it got breakdown . There are  many such feature preserved there but very tough to dig out from rock.

In photographs nothing It is not clearly visible that's why I have not posted it earlier.

Relax mate. I just pointed out my opinion while you worked on it so your observation will make more sense but I was thinking why the surface was looking so fresh after facing Oligocene cooling followed by a major transgression in Miocene.

At this level it is very difficult to comment positively. It seems to me whether it is natural or not? Because it is present  on a surface where larger foraminifera are clearly present.

Dear Sanjay,

I also agree with other colleagues regarding assigning the age on the base of large forams. In fact it is better you macerate your samples and try to find some index fossils and then get an idea about the age. Then what is clear in your hand specimen is that you have got the coat of possible fish scale and the fossil itself is not there. If you are lucky, you may find some bone remains in your samples which may help you to identify your fossils.

With best regards,

Habib.

There are echinodermata that are generally similar.  I'd suggest finding an expert and sending him the picture.  My go to guy is Rich Mooi at CAS here in California.  I'm sure there is someone in your part of the world more experienced with your local fossils.  

Best,

Chuck

Dear Sanjay! As for me, this specimen partly looks like some primitive ancient acipenserid. Please look through the paper attached (especially, Protoscaphirhynchus). I'm not sure, but still... Anyway, good luck!

Article Review of the fossil record of sturgeons, family Acipenserid...

Article THE FOSSIL RECORD OF STURGEONS (ACTINOPTERYGII: ACIPENSERIFO...