Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, and the Addl. CIT, NAFAC-1(1)(2), Delhi as the Prescribed IT authority) (NAFAC) has issued notice dt. 29th June, 2021 to the assessee under S. 143(2) of the Act.  Subsequently, Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore, the first respondent has served notices dt. 23rd Nov., 2021, 9th Dec., 2021, 3rd Jan., 2022, 11th Jan., 2022, 19th Feb., 2022, 28th April, 2022, 27th May, 2022 and 12th Aug., 2022 under S. 142(1)-Assessment order was the passed by NAFAC. On writ the assessee  contended  that assessee’s jurisdictional AO is the Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore and as such, the Addl. CIT, NaFAC-1(1)(2), Delhi could not have assumed jurisdiction to issue notice under S. 143(2) because the jurisdiction of the first respondent has not been decentralized is not sustainable. Court held that in exercise of power under S. 143(3A) to 143(3C), the Central Government has notified Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 and the CBDT, which is conferred with powers to ensure that assessment shall be under the Scheme in respect of certain persons or class of persons or class of incomes under the terms of the Scheme, has issued order dt. 13th Aug., 2020 under S.  119(2) stipulating that all assessment orders shall be by the National E-Assessment Centre through the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 except insofar as the cases assigned to Central Charges and International Taxation Charges. Further, with the CBDT also issuing appropriate notification in exercise of powers under S. 143(2) authorizing certain officers as the Prescribed IT authority for the purposes of this section, notices have been served on all assessees, including the assessees in the case of Central Charges and International Taxation Charges, and because of the order dt. 13th Aug., 2020, the assessment proceedings insofar as the aforesaid two categories are carried forward by the jurisdictional AO. This arrangement with the necessary statutory orders is part of the Scheme notified in exercise of powers under S.  143(3A) to 143(3C)of the Act. There is a transition from a Scheme notified under the provisions of the IT Act to a Scheme under the IT Act incorporating all the essential without material changes insofar as assessments generally and assessments in the cases of Central Charges and International Taxation Charges and there is nothing in this transition, including the provisions of S. 144B or the CBDT’s order, to infer exclusion of the operation of CBDT’s order dt. 13th Aug., 2020-Therefore the operation of the CBDT’s order dt. 13th Aug., 2020 is saved by the application of S. 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Further, restriction under S. 124(3) on the right to raise the question of jurisdiction must extend to all grounds on which jurisdiction is called in question. If the right to call in question the jurisdiction is left open to be raised at any stage, the proceedings will remain inconclusive and that could not have been the intendment of the legislature. Writ petition is dismissed.   (AY. 2020-21)