Held that the husband of the assessee had already passed away in the year 1986 and hence there was no question of his being governed by section 5A which was applicable only to the division of income between spouses who were governed by the Portuguese Civil Code and not with the division of assets. That it had been duly brought to the knowledge of the Department that the substantive rights of the assessee’s husband were governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code. Mere non-mentioning of it in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the husband could be taxed in the assessee’s (his wife’s) hands. The Department had not disputed that the assessee’s husband was governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and this was already on record of the Revenue. The assessee’s husband had passed away in the year 1986 and his share of the sale consideration had devolved from the date of his demise equally on his children. This position was also known to the Department when their returns of income were filed. That the reasoning of the Department for rejecting the explanation of the assessee that a copy of the sale deed was not available at the time of recording of reasons was fallacious and not tenable in law. The information from the office of the Sub-Registrar for any registration was duly transmitted to the Department. The execution of such sale deed was already on record. If the Department had failed to take note of the document which was available for transmission to them from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 was erroneous. At the time of passing of the order rejecting the assessee’s objection to the reopening of the assessment, the sale deeds which were available ought to have been taken into consideration.  That the contention of the assessee that the reason cited by the Department for rejecting the explanation, that the assessee’s husband had not stated that she was governed by the provisions of section 5A of the Act was ex facie incorrect and untenable had force. Therefore, in view of the jurisdictional errors, the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147 and the order rejecting the assessee’s objections were quashed and set aside. (AY.2015-16)