ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. - Heard. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. The petitions arise in common background. We may refer to the facts from Writ Petition No. 1685 of 2018. 3. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 28.2.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. By this order, the said Authority dismissed the petitioner''s request for condonation of delay in filing a Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"for short). 4. Perusal of the record shows that earlier also, the petitioner''s attempt of persuading the Commissioner to condone the delay and hear the Revision Application on merits had failed. The petitioner had thereupon approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 674 of 2017. In such petition, the Court, by order dated 23.6.2017, quashed the order of the Commissioner and permitted the petitioner to file separate application for condonation of delay giving reasons and requiring the Commissioner to decide such application and then to decide the petition on merits if the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a separate application before the Commissioner and tried to explain the delay in the Revision Petitions. The Commissioner rejected such applications as noted above by the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner committed an error in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. Perusal of the order of the Commissioner would show that he expected rather strict compliance of the requirement of explaining each day of delay. We may record that the delay in filing the Revision Application was of 198 days. The delay was not inordinate in any case. It was even otherwise explained by the petitioner by pointing out that there was huge work load of assessment under Section 153A of the Act, under an erroneous advise of the tax consultant, the assessee had inadvertently offered interest income under misconception of law and that the main person looking after the affairs of new tax consultant was indisposed for about 6 to 7 months due to serious back injury. 6. 6. It is well settled through serious of judgments of the Supreme Court that when the issues of technical and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the course of substantial justice would normally prevail. In the present case, when the delay was even otherwise not inordinate and was explained in the above terms, the Commissioner should have condoned the same. In the previous round, the High Court had remanded the proceedings before the Commissioner by allowing the petitioner to file separate application for condonation of delay and requested the Commissioner to consider such application. Perhaps this second round of litigation could have been avoided. Be that as it may, we allow the petitioner''s applications for condonation of delay in both the petitions and request the Commissioner to dispose of the petitioner''s Revision Applications on merits expeditiously. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.