“agricultural income”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(1A) / Rule 7, 7A, 7B(1), 7B(1A), 82,868 judgments

The decision most relied on for agricultural income is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agricultural income

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court

192

citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court

190

citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court

187

citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer

154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

132

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT

203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing agricultural income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Vadodara vs. Anil Bholabhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 729/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 729, 718 & 719/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) D.C.I.T, Anil Bholabhai Patel, Central Circle-2, Vs. A 1-2, Darshan Park Society, Vadodara. Vip Road, Karelibaug, Vadodara-390018. Pan: Actpp2509G

For Appellant: Smt. Arti N Shah, A RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

take note of the fact that some of the properties were let out and rent thereon was earned as a yield on such investments. Agricultural income has been consistently declared year-after-year on agricultural land so held before its sale. The non-agricultural land so held were shown ... different view in departure with the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench relevant to Asstt. Year 2004-05 mainly on the premise that the agricultural income has not been declared on the agricultural land held in that year. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, agricultural income has been

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Vadodara vs. Anil Bholabhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 719/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Arti N Shah, A RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Vadodara vs. Anil Bholabhai Patel, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 718/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Arti N Shah, A RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

Logamaheshwara, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1312/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1312/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Logamaheshwara Income Tax Officer, 5/217, Attavanai V. Ward -1, Erayamangalayam, Tiruchengode. Erayamangalayam, Namakkal – 637 210. [Pan: Ajqpl-7714-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 69A

filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 06.03.2018, admitting a total income of Rs. 3,75,350/- and agricultural income of Rs. 50,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify large cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course of assessment ... Return filed for last two financial years. Further, he has received loan from LIC at Rs. 3,04,115/- and balance is out of agricultural income and income from salary for the current year. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

carrying on agricultural operations for 27 years, that he had been filing return of income regularly and that the source of income was from agricultural income and interest income from bank deposits. These facts were never disputed by the Assessing Officer. 23. After receipt of the penalty notice, the assessee ... carrying on agricultural operations for 27 years, that he had been filing return of income regularly and that the source of income was from agricultural income and interest income from bank deposits. These facts were never disputed by the Assessing Officer. 23. After receipt of the penalty notice, the assessee

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

Dipti Srivastwa, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1422/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dipti Srivastwa Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 34(3), Kolkata Room No. 422, Centre Point 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Biqps1509F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.89,10,000/-. 2. That The Appellant Had Already Stated That The Said Figure Was Erroneously Shown & Even The Facts As Admitted By The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Confirm That There Was No Such Income. 3. That The Additions Made Are Against Law & Facts. 4. That The Appellant Prays For Deleting The Additions Made.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250

return. Income assessed at Rs.89,31,374/-. Thereafter matter travelled before the ld. CIT(A) before whom assessee submitted that the assessee had earned agricultural income only to the tune of Rs. 8,91,000/- but inadvertently figure of Rs.89,10,000/- was mentioned. Copy of computation of income ... made the addition of Rs.89,10,000/-. The second ground is that the assessee is having land holding and she has genuinely earned agricultural income of Rs.8,91,000/-. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the above claim. 7. We notice that in the current scenario, computation

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Rs.3,01,034 claimed by the assessee appellant. 4. That the A.O. was not justified in disallowing the claim of exemption in respect of agricultural income amounting to Rs.12,20,775 claimed by the assessee despite the relevant evidences produced in course of assessment proceedings though the same is exempt ... against the income declared at Rs.4,26,620/-, income assessed at Rs.52,48,429/-, after making following three additions:- (i) Denial of exemption for agricultural income at Rs.12,20,775/-; (ii) Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 57 of the Act at Rs.3,01,034/-; 4 I.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019; Assessment Year

Kewal Singh, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 668/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Kewal Singh, Vs. Ito, 162, Tower Wali Gali, Ward-1, Professor Colony, Fatehabad Fatehabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcaps2250P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

assessee had filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 on 11.5.2014 declaring taxable income of Rs 1,74,220/- and agricultural income of Rs 2,50,000/-. The assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act on 29.2.2016 determining total income of the assessee ... account of the assessee. The AO has mentioned that the assessee filed return Shri Kewal Singh declaring income of Rs. 1,74,220/- (plus agriculture income at Rs. 2,50,000/-) on 11.05.2014 and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny for verification of source of huge cash deposited into

Blue Park Sea Foods Private Limited., Bhimavaram vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 515/VIZ/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.515/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Blue Park Sea Foods Private Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist, Central Circle, Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaccb 0689 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40Section 68

Shrimp, filed its original return of income on 24/9/2011 admitting Rs. 98,76,755/- as business income and Rs. 9,54,200/- as agricultural income. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 6/2/2014 and on subsequent dates. Thereafter, the case was taken ... from sale of wastage; disallowance of agricultural income of Rs. 2,59,700/-; disallowance of ROC fees 3 of Rs. 80,570/- and again disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,333/-. After going through the material available on record and the submissions made

Lakshmaiah Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Rajahmundary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 55/VIZ/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

assessed income at Rs. 87,36,584/- against the returned income of Rs. 3,10,000/-. In the assessment the Ld.AO also determined the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs. 4,47,592/- and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

arrangements proposing to transfer the land have been terminated. 12. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not directing the LAO towards granting rebate on agriculture income while computing the tax liability. 13. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not directing the LAO in considering the facts and circumstances ... notice issued under section 153C, the Respondent filed the return of income declaring salary income from Chamundi Distilleries Private Limited of Rs.60,000/-, agricultural income of Rs. 1,75,000/- and exemption from long-term capital gains of Rs.9,16,00,000. Based on the documents found during the search

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Goreshwar Gramin Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT- Central Circle 2-(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 2145/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 131Section 147Section 68

claim of the assessee that the members of it are residing in rural areas and most of them are farmers having agricultural income, some of them are small shopkeepers. It is also not the finding of the AO that that the members had only account for which the addition

Goreshwar Gramin Multistate Co.Op. Cr. Soc, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT, CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 2145/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 131Section 147Section 68

Arjun Mahadev Parab, Aros vs. ITO Ward Kudal, Kudal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1080/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

learned lower authorities have ex- parte order by confirming the addition of Rs.11,78,200/- u/sec.69A of the Act and denying the credit for agricultural income of Rs.2,00,500/-. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the 2 ITA.No.1080/PUN./2023 assessee had not filed any explanation either before the Assessing

K Ramachandra Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri L.B. Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, DR

sickness and also not getting any ready help from his authorized representative. Learned AR submitted that the assessee received his service terminal benefits, agricultural income etc., and given an opportunity, he is ready to prove the same. He, therefore, prayed to grant an opportunity in the interest of justice

Kalpana Goswami, Bhopal vs. I.T.O. 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 324/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee filed a reply dated 06.08.2018 stating that the deposits were made from sale consideration of a rural agricultural land, rental income and agricultural income. The assessee also submitted that she had sold a rural agricultural land (jointly owned with her sister) situated at Village Bhojpur through an agreement dated ... submitted vide reply filed on 06.08.2018 that amounts of cash deposits in the bank are majorly from Sales Consideration of rural agricultural land, agricultural income and the property income. During the year, she had sold jointly held agricultural land with her sister Smt. Sushma Bharti which was situated at Village

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

declared an income under the head income from House Property, Business Income and Income from Other- Sources. The assessee had also shown an agricultural income. 3.2 Further, it is noticed that the assessee had taken three booths on lease from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh since 01.07.1987. These three booths ... During the year, it had declared income from house property, business income and income from other sources. It had also shown agriculture income. The assessee had taken three booths on lease from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, since 01.07.1987. These booths had been sub-let to three different milk vendors from

Tr Pchamuthu Now Known As Tr Paarivendhar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2023[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Parliament. The assessee filed his return of income on 29.10.2001 admitting 3 income from house property, profession of running a tutorial institute and agricultural income. The return was not acted upon as it was filed beyond the time limit. Later, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and assessee