How to realise "anatta" of "Nama-rupa" By noticing my abdomen while breathing , I can feel up and down movement of it . Also I can keep a mental notes as "up" and "down". When it is up there is "rupa of up" and "Nama of up mental note " and vice versa for down. But when it is down both "up rupa and Nama " already gone . So I have a glimpse of " anicca" .  

I do not feel directly  "dukka" relate to abdomen movement but by applying same "anicca" for other temporary things in life I can get an understanding about "dukka" too .

But I do not still have any clue about "anatta" , how can I understand the "anatta" using above scenario?
The three characteristics are not meant to be understood through analysis; they are meant to be understood through direct realization (paññā). Once you truly see anatta for yourself, the next moment is the realization of nibbana. So there is no reason or benefit in seeking out this knowledge intellectually; it has to come by itself through mindfulness.


  “sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
  
  -- Dhp 279


In truth, you are seeing anatta at every moment - because the experiences arise and cease without remainder, they are not self or anything belonging to self. Eventually, through the practice of mindfulness, you begin to understand this clearly, and give up any attachment to experiences as me, mine, etc.


  He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on.
  
  -- Vism XXI.48 (Nyanamoli, trans)
  
  then, seeing nothing to be taken as “I” or “mine,” he abandons both terror and delight and becomes indifferent and neutral towards all formations.
  
  -- Vism XXI.61 (Nyanamoli, trans)


Mahasi Sayadaw acknowledges the difficulty in understanding the characteristic of non-self in comparison to understanding the other two characteristics, referring to the commentaries and sub-commentaries who acknowledge the same. The sub-commentary points out, however, that this is simply because intellectual knowledge is inadequate to truly understand any of the three characteristics:


  The commentary states that the non-self doctrine is so deep that even the Enlightened One had to employ either the characteristics of impermanence or the characteristics of suffering or both of them to facilitate the teaching of the doctrine of non-self.
  
  The sub-commentary explained further that: 'In the above statement of the commentary, the anicca and dukkha known outside the Dispensation are mere conventional terms, by means of which idea of non-self could not be known. Only the anicca and dukkha realized in the absolute sense could be useful in explaining the doctrine of non-self. 
  
  Mahasi Sayadaw, Anattalakkhana Sutta


If you want to understand the teaching on non-self intellectually, then, you can do so by reflecting on the characteristics of impermanence and suffering and inferring the characteristic of non-self in a way similar to the Buddha's exposition in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:


  "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
  
  -- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)


This will not, however, constitute true understanding of any of the characteristics, for which the culmination of insight meditation is required.