Held, dismissing the petition, that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a notification dated May 28, 2022 2022) 445 ITR (St) 21), in exercise of powers under rule 12E of the Rules, and had authorised the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi to act as the “prescribed income-tax authority” for the purpose of issuance of notice under section 143(2). The notice under section 143(2) for the Assessment year 2023-2024 had been issued by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner (IT), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi. Therefore, the contention that the Income-tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue the  notice under section 143(2) was not tenable. The contention that other than the Assessing Officer, only the authorised Income-tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre could issue notice under section 143(2) as it would be in furtherance of automation of such process, was also not tenable. This proposition is not supported by the plain language of section 143(2) of the Act or rule 12E of the Rules. The contention that the prescribed Income-tax Authority could only serve a notice under section 143(2) but could not issue it, was insubstantial. The notices dated July 10, 2024 and September 6, 2024 under section 142(1) for the assessment year 2023-2024 were not beyond the period of limitation. Once it was accepted that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 143(2) which was also the contention of the assessee-the Assessing Officer could not be faulted for proceeding to complete the  assessment.(AY.2023-24)