W. Hasan, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Order of assessment was passed in the case of the petitioner on January 12, 1996, under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, a Scheme known as Kar Vivad Samadhan was promulgated. The 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 January 12, 1996. The Commissioner; of Income-tax did not condone the delay of one year ten months and ten days. It appears that the petitioner also filed on December 28, 1998, a declaration under Section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) 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 learned Counsel that the petition under Section 264 was pending when the application under Section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) 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.