After the search operation the  assessee filed settlement petition before the Settlement commission which was admitted. The Assessing Officer however proceeded to pass a penalty order under section 271DA of the Act. The assessee filed writ before the High Court, allowing the petition the Court held that  both the notices under section 153A as well as under section 271DA for violation of section 269ST, had their origin in the search, seizure and survey conducted qua the assessee, as evident from a bare reading of the notice under section 271DA. Both were part of the same case. The proceedings for violation of section 269ST according to the notice dated September 30, 2019, were a result of what was found in the search and survey qua the assessee and were capable of being treated as part and parcel of the case taken by the assessee by way of application to the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to violation of section 269ST also and the Assessing Officer, on November 4, 2019 did not have the jurisdiction to impose penalty for violation of section 269ST on the assessee. His order was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside and quashed. (AY.2018-19)