AI Insights
The case involves multiple appellants who were employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and received compensation under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019. The primary legal issue was whether the compensation received qualifies as Retrenchment Compensation and is thus exempt from tax as a Capital receipt under section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellants had initially offered the compensation to tax and claimed exemption under section 10(10C) for amounts up to Rs. 5 lakh. However, they later contested that the entire amount should be exempt under section 10(10B). The Tribunal considered precedents and decisions from other benches which had ruled in favor of similar claims, leading to the decision to allow the appeals.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848188 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-03-2026
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
Pune
Assessment Year
2021-2022
Appeal Filed On
21-01-2026
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC” : PUNE BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.302 and 303/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2021-22 and 2020-21 Rajendra Himmatrao Patil, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AAQPP9245G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.325 and 326/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Chandrakant Parshuram Shirole, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ATEPS6565M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.327 and 328/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Namdeo Kashinath Kasar, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AMYPK6105E Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 2 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.331 and 332/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Lalitkumar Pandharinath Joshi, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABXPJ7779H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.304 and 305/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2021-22 and 2020-21 Sunita Dnyaneshwar Khamkar, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABDPK333N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.306 and 307/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Dhanajay Bhagwanrao Degaonkar, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABEPD8418N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nanded. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.309 and 329/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2021-22 and 2020-21 Rohidas Dajbhau Bhamare, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ACQPB4093A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dhule. Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 3 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.310 and 321/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2021-22 and 2020-21 Vishakha Avinash Joshi, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AAPPJ4034J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.324 and 340/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2021-22 and 2020-21 Arvind Pandurang Kajawe, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ABCPK1993K Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.338 and 339/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Sunita Namdeo Wagh, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AAHPW8315M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.852 and 853/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Karveer Gangaji Narewadi, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AAHPN8584F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 4 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.854 and 855/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Vidya Charudatta Lingayat, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AASPL6032H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.856 and 857/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Rohini Sanjay Naik, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ADBPN1341D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.858 and 859/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Pratima Ravindra Acharya, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ACRPA3047L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.860 and 861/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Rajendra Pandit Thakuar, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AANPT2285R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon. Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 5 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.862 and 863/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Ramchandra Trimbakrao Kale, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : ACQPK7829R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.866 and 867/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Sneha Uday Sawant, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AKUPS7375Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.868 and 869/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2020-21 and 2021-22 Pitambar Laxman Shimpi, C/o. Padvekar Law Chambers, 408, Maker Bhavan No.3, 21, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra PAN : AHNPS9905L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon. Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 6 Assessee by : Shri Tanzil Padvekar (Virtual) Revenue by : Sailee Dhole – JCIT (Virtual) Date of hearing : 24/03/2026, 25/03/2026 & 26.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/03/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH : The captioned appeals at the instance of respective assessee(s) pertaining to A.Yrs. 2020-21 and 2021-22 are directed against the separate orders framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 arising out of respective Intimation orders passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Since common issues have been raised in the above appeals we proceed to adjudicate these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is that whether the amount received from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) on account of the forced retirement through the BNSL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation and is a Capital receipt not liable to be taxed as per the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act. 4. Brief facts relating to all the assessee(s) in the instant appeals are that they are employed with BSNL which is under administrative control of Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India. In order to revive BSNL, the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated 23.10.2019 approved the revival plan of BSNL and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Mumbai (MTNL) vide Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 7 Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2019 issued by Department of Telecommunications. As part of the revival package the Government decided to reduce the work force through BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 to the employees of aged 50 years and above and on such retirement Ex-gratia compensation has been paid. The amount so received by the instant employees is stated to have been offered to tax after claiming exemption u/s.10(10C) of the Act Rs.5.00 lakh and have paid the due taxes on the remaining amount of compensation over and above Rs.5.00 lakhs (in cases where such compensation exceeds Rs.5.00 lakhs). Admittedly, in this bunch of appeals the claim that the entire amount of compensation received from BSNL being Capital receipt is not liable to tax as per the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act has been made for the first time before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal). It is also noticed that in some cases ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on account of delay in filing of the appeals and in some cases ld.CIT(A) has not entertained the new claim made for the first time holding that the same should have been made in the revised return of income. Aggrieved with the finding of ld.CIT(A), the assessee(s) are in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset justifying the delay in filing of appeals before ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue of claiming benefit of exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act for the amount received as compensation from BSNL for the force retirement has been adjudicated by the Coordinate Benches of Chandigarh as well as Ahmedabad and other Tribunals consistently holding in favour of the assessee(s). He also submitted that in various cases dealt by the Coordinates Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 8 Benches, the alleged claim of exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act has been made for the first time and the same has been admitted by the Tribunal and relief has been granted. Reliance placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayesh Kumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (2026) 183 taxmann.com 587 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) 6. So far as the claim that the alleged sum received in the form of Retrenchment Compensation from BSNL under the forced retirement is a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax and exemption available u/s.10(10B) of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee(s), ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance in the following decisions : 1. Harish Kumar Vs. ITO (2025) 175 taxmann.com 379 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 2. Dayal Singh Vs. ITO – ITA 519/cHD/2024 3. Suresh Pal Chauhan vs. ITO (2023) 154 taxmann.com 529 (Chandigarh-Trib.) 4. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre Vs. Govt. of India (2017) 79 taxmann.com 298 (Madras) 5. CIT (TDS) Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre (2021 129 taxmann.com 356 (Madras) 6. Union of India Vs. M/s. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre and others _ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.37247/2017 7. Shree Rajeshwar Sharma Vs. ITO – ITA No.870/CHD/2018 8. CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.(1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) 9. PCIT Vs. Karnataka State Cooperative Federation Ltd. (2021) 128 taxmann.com 1 (Karnataka) 10. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (2012) 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay) 7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that firstly the assess(s) have not made this claim in the regular returns of income and themselves paid due taxes and such claim ought to have been made through revised return. He also submitted that the sum received from BSNL is on account of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 9 such amount received under the VRS, 2019, the assessee(s) are only eligible for the exemption to the extent of Rs.5.00 lakh as provided u/s.10(10C) of the Act. 8. We are of the considered opinion that Ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay as assessee had filed elaborate explanation regarding delay and there was sufficient cause for delay. These Assessee have filed Returns of Income based on professional Advise received at that point of time. However, subsequently they made revised claim before CIT(A). 8.1 Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) has condoned the delay of 2984days , which was on account of professional advice of a CA. 9. The identical issue of BSNL employees is decided by ITAT Pune in favour of assessee in ITA Nos.290 and 293/PUN/2026,ITA Nos.294 and 295/PUN/2026. ITAT Pune has relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeskumar Sutaria vs ITO ,ITAT has extensively reproduced the decision and finally allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced here under : Quote, “15. Further, I find the Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO (supra) following the decision of Coordinate Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward- 5(5), Chandigarh -ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 order dated 30.05.2025 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : “3. The assessee was employed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a Government of India enterprise. BSNL notified the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019 on 04.11.2019, Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 10 which was duly approved and implemented by the employer. The assessee opted for the scheme and accordingly received compensation under the VRS, as per the terms laid down by BSNL. It is submitted that the assessee had not been paid regular salary for several months prior to opting for the scheme and was under severe financial and professional uncertainty. In view of these circumstances, the assessee opted for the scheme as a measure of financial security. The compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The compensation amount received under the scheme was offered to tax in the return of income due to lack of awareness regarding the exemption available under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted tax at source on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation under section 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification or appeal was initiated at that time. It was only upon learning about the recent judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025, dated 30.05.2025) that the assessee became aware that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B), subject to compliance with Rule 2BA. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non maintainable by observing as follows: “…In the present case, the delay in filing of the appeal is almost four years which is an inordinate and huge delay. Moreover, as has been elaborately discussed above, the appellant has also failed to provide any reasonable ground that could assist the first appellate authority to draw sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1,396 days in filing of this appeal. The inordinate delay in the present case, if condoned, would make the term ‘’Sufficient cause” in section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hollow and meaningless. 20. In light of the facts of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and judicial decisions in the matter as discussed above, I am constrained to conclude that the appellant has failed to submit any reasonable ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 1,396 days i.e almost four years in filing this appeal. Being bereft of any sufficient cause as envisaged in section 249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 11 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to lack of awareness of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return of income, the assessee inadvertently offered the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 to tax. Subsequently, based on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Harish Kumar vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Chandigarh (ITA No. 42/CHD/2025 dated 30.05.2025), wherein compensation under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under section 10(10B), the assessee now seeks exemption of such compensation. We find that the assessee filed theclaim before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the income of the assessee is not taxable, the assessee is eligible for the refund of the TDS. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 16. The contention of ld. DR that only a ‘workman’ as defined under the Act is eligible for benefit u/s.10(10B) of the Act has no force as the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre vs. Govt. of India (2018) 400 ITR 299 (Madras) has held that benefit u/s.10(10B) would be applicable to all employees covered by the scheme. 17. In light of the above decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of instant cases and the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches, I am of the considered view that the alleged sum is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation received by the assessee(s) in appeal, under the forced retirement scheme as per the standing orders dated 29.10.2019 issued by the Union Cabinet for the revival plan of BSNL/MTNL and such compensation falls under the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act and not u/s.10(10C) of the Act and therefore the alleged sum is in the nature of Capital receipt exempt from tax. In order to get relief as has been directed in this order, assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act as discussed (supra) and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside. Common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal raised by respective assessee(s) stands allowed.” 9. Since the facts in the instant bunch of appeals are same, therefore, following the same parity of reasoning, I hold that the alleged sum received under BSNL Voluntary Retirement2019 Scheme is in the nature of Retrenchment Compensation received by the assessee(s) in appeal and such compensation falls under the provisions of section 10(10B) of the Act and not u/s.10(10C) of the Act and is in the nature of Capital receipt exempt from tax. Assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 12 u/s.10(10B) of the Act of the alleged sum and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall compute the tax liability and grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and the common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal by respective assessee(s) stands allowed.”Unquote. 10. Before us the Ld.AR also filed copies of the Orders of CIT(A) who have condoned the delay in identical facts and allowed the appeal of the assessee who were BSNL employees. 11. In following cases the CIT(A) has condoned the delay and allowed those BSNL employees Appeal on identical facts. Printed from counselvise.com Rajendra Himmatrao Patil & Others 13 12. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune (supra) we hold that the impugned amounts were exempt from tax. Assessee(s) are directed to place revised computation of income before the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers claiming the exemption u/s.10(10B) of the Act of the alleged sum and thereafter the Revenue authorities shall compute the tax liability and grant the refund (if any) entitled to the assessee(s) after due verification of such revised computation of income. Impugned findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and the common issue raised in the Grounds of appeal by respective assessee(s) stands allowed. 13. Accordingly, Appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27th March, 2026/ Sujeet आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस.एम्.सी.” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "
Other Referred Cases
Jayesh Kumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO, Harish Kumar Vs. ITO, Dayal Singh Vs. ITO, Suresh Pal Chauhan vs. ITO, Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre Vs. Govt. of India, CIT (TDS) Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre, Union of India Vs. Hindustan Photo Film Workers Welfare Centre and others, Shree Rajeshwar Sharma Vs. ITO, CIT Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., PCIT Vs. Karnataka State Cooperative Federation Ltd., CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act 1961
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Convertible Note Agreement
Mehul₹5000
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
When Cash Beats Value: The Hidden Rule Driving India’s Biggest Insolvency Battle
Team Counselvise - April 01, 2026