(1) DELAY condoned. (2) ORDER of assessment was passed in the case of the petitioner on 12-1-1996 under Section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (3) UNDER the Finance Act, 1998 a scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan was promulgated. Persons could avail of the benefit of this Scheme if their cases were still pending. (4) IN October 1998, the petitioner filed an application under Section 264 before the Commissioner of Income Tax for revising the order of assessment dated 12-1-1996. The Commissioner of Income Tax did not condone the delay of 1 year 10 months and 10 days. It appears that the petitioner also filed on 28-12-1998 a declaration under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998 under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. This declaration was not entertained by the Commissioner in view of the fact that according to him there was no revision application pending because the delay in filing the revision application has not been condoned. (5) THE High Court on a writ petition being filed, upheld the order of the Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition. (6) WE agree with the observations of the High Court that no ground was made out for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 264. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petition under Section 264 was pending when the application under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1998 had been filed. We do not agree with this submission for the simple reason that what was really pending at that point of time was the application for condonation of delay, of course, along with that application the petition under Section 264 had been filed but the same could be regarded as pending only if the delay had been condoned. As the delay was not condoned, the revision petition itself was never entertained. (7) THE order of the High Court, in our opinion, does not call for any interference. Special leave petition is dismissed.