JUDGMENT V.K. Singhal, J.—The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, dated February 17, 1999, has been assailed in this petition. The petitioner has submitted a revision for the year 1995-96 against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated March 31, 1997, on January 29, 1999. In that revision petition, neither the application for condonation of delay was filed nor any reasons were stated for late filing of the petition. In response to reply dated February 5, 1999 also, no reasons were stated. The revision petition was dismissed where it was observed that it was filed only for taking benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. 2. In accordance with the scheme of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, if the revision is pending then the declaration could be filed. For the purpose of maintenance of the revision even a belated revision could have been filed giving reasons for delay in submitting the revision. In any case, when the notice was issued to the petitioner, it was the duty of the petitioner to give reasons so that the revision petition could be maintained. A delayed petition without giving reasons for delay is no petition in the eye of law. The word "pending" in Section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme refers to a petition pending in the eye of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the word "pending" should be interpreted to mean undecided and a legal proceeding which is pending as soon as it commences and until it is concluded. The suit is stated to be pending until final judgment is rendered. Since the revision petition was pending on the date of declaration filed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, there should not be any difficulty in accepting the declaration submitted by the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in case of Mela Ram and Sons Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 367 , wherein it was considered that the appeal presented out of time is an appeal and an order dismissing it as time barred is one passed in appeal. 4. I have considered over the matter. In the case of Mela Ram and Sons Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 367 , wherein it was considered that the appeal presented out of time is an appeal and an order dismissing it as time barred is one passed in appeal. 4. I have considered over the matter. In the case of Mela Ram and Sons Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 367 , which was in the circumstances where an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed as time barred and the question was whether the second appeal lies, to the Tribunal or not. The Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay. It was held by the apex court that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has discretion to condone the delay and he has also discretion not to condone the delay. If the delay is not condoned, still it will be an order against which an appeal would lie to the Tribunal. In the present matter, as observed above, the revision petition was filed belatedly. Even a belated revision filed may result in pendency of the revisional proceedings before the Commissioner, provided, it is supported by an application for condonation of delay. Under the Income Tax Act time limit is prescribed for filing the revision, and there is a power to condone the delay also. If the revision is filed belatedly with an application for condonation of delay which may ultimately be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay by the Commissioner or may not be considered, would make the revisional proceedings pending, but if the revision petition is filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay then it will not be considered to have been filed in, accordance with the provisions of Section 264. Not only that, even when a notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out the fact of delay no steps were taken to move application for condonation of delay at that stage. In these circumstances, it may be considered that there was no valid revision preferred by the petitioner and it was not pending. The order, therefore, passed by the Commissioner does not require any interference. The petition stands dismissed.