A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD on LA. No. 482 of 2006, filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal is allowed. Delay in filing appeal is condoned. ( 2 ) THIS is an appeal by the assessee under Section 27a of the WT Act against an order, dt. 17th June, 2005, passed by learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Tribunal), in WTA No. 1/ind/2005. ( 3 ) THE assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of printing and sale of newspaper. A question arose during the asst. yr. 1998-99, before the WT authorities as to whether a property (building) let out by the assessee to tenant can be included in the net wealth of assessee for the purpose of determining the net value of the assets under the WT Act. Though, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this asset, i. e. , let out property, the AO, CWT (A) and lastly, the Tribunal held against the assessee. In other words, rejecting the contention of assessee, all the three authorities consistently held that keeping in view the clear mandate provided in Section 40 (2) and (3) of Finance Act, 1983, the property in question has got to be taken into account, i. e. , it should be included in the net wealth of assessee for being taxed in accordance with the requirement of Sch. III of the WT Act, because it is in the nature of asset chargeable to wealth-tax under Section 40 ibid. It is this view, which is sought to be impugned by the assessee in this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD Shri Sunil Makode and Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant (assessee) and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal In limine. ( 6 ) THIS is what the Tribunal held in para 6 of the impugned order on the issue which is subject-matter of this appeal:para 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, rival submissions and the material on record. In the case of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a commercial asset is an asset which is used in the business and nothing else. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, rival submissions and the material on record. In the case of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a commercial asset is an asset which is used in the business and nothing else. Therefore, if a building is not used for the purpose of business, then it is neither a commercial asset nor it can be said to be used for the purpose of the business. The assessee has one building, which is partly used by the assessee and partly rented for the purpose of earning rental income. The claim of the assessee's counsel that the building is stock-in-trade is without merit because the assessee is not doing any business of purchase and sale of buildings. The letting out of the building by the assessee is not a part of the business activity of the assessee. Under Section 40 (3) of the Finance Act, 1983 as amended by the Finance Act, 1988, wealth-tax is chargeable under the WT Act in respect of net wealth on the valuation date of every private company in which public are not substantially interested. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, the net wealth of a company shall be the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets referred to in Sub-section (3) wherever located belonging to the company on the valuation date is in excess of aggregate value of all the assets owned by the company. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 40, all such assets have been mentioned which are chargeable to wealth-tax. In this section building or land appurtenant thereto other than building or part thereof used by the assessee as a factory, godown, warehouse, cinema house, hotel or office, etc. , are chargeable to wealth-tax. The assessee's building, therefore, comes within the ambit of Sub-section (3) (iv) of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 and is taxable as such. The value of the assets is to be taken as on the valuation date in the manner laid down in Sch. III to the WT Act. There is no dispute about the determination of the value under the WT Act. It is incorrect that the building is the stock-in-trade because the assessee is not dealing in purchase and sale of buildings. III to the WT Act. There is no dispute about the determination of the value under the WT Act. It is incorrect that the building is the stock-in-trade because the assessee is not dealing in purchase and sale of buildings. Therefore, the building let out by the assessee is an asset chargeable to wealth-tax under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. This ground of appeal is dismissed. ( 7 ) WE have not been able to notice any infirmity or illegality in the impugned finding of the Tribunal holding the assets in question i. e. "building let out to tenant" as one of the assets chargeable to wealth-tax under the WT Act. In our view, merely because the assessee has let out their building on rent to tenant, is no ground to hold in their favour that such building ceases to be an asset for being taxed under the provisions of WT Act in the hands of assessee. In other words, taxability of an asset does not depend upon the fact as to whether it is let out by the assessee or not? It remains an asset irrespective of fact as to whether it is let out or not in the hands of assessee for being taxed under the WT Act. ( 8 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, which alone is sufficient, we find no case to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and hence, dismiss the appeal in limine. In our view, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law so as to attract the rigour of Section 27a of the Act for admitting the appeal. As a necessary consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we are constrained to make some observations on the basis of what we noticed from the record of the case. It was noticed from the memo of appeal filed by assessee (p. 5) that it originally contained the name of Mr. A. P. Patankar, advocate. It was, as if, the appeal of assessee is filed by Mr. A. P. Patankar, advocate. His typed name was later erased by ink but yet one could read his (Mr. A. P. Patankar) name even after erasing. It may be mentioned that Mr. A. P. Patankar, advocate. It was, as if, the appeal of assessee is filed by Mr. A. P. Patankar, advocate. His typed name was later erased by ink but yet one could read his (Mr. A. P. Patankar) name even after erasing. It may be mentioned that Mr. A. P. Patankar is a senior standing counsel for IT Department and is regularly appearing for the Department in this Court. It was also noticed that one Mr. Sunil Makode, advocate is appearing regularly as assisting counsel/junior counsel to Mr. Patankar on behalf of Department. On request, Mr. Makode gave the list of 8 income-tax appeals in which he has actually signed Vakalatnama along with Mr. Patankar on behalf of Department which are pending. However, this appeal is filed by Mr. Sunil Makode along with Mr. Himanshu Joshi on behalf of assessee as both these lawyers have signed Vakalatnama for and on behalf of assessee (appellant ). He, i. e. , Mr. Makode also stood up to argue the appeal of assessee. It was only when the Bench objected to his appearance for assessee, Mr. Makode prayed for his withdrawal from the case. Later Mr. Joshi argued the appellant. ( 10 ) ALL that we wish to observe on the basis of what we have taken note of supra is that when Mr. Makode is appearing as assisting counsel to senior standing counsel of Department, Mr. A. P. Patankar, then in these circumstances, he (Mr. Makode) ought not to have accepted the brief for assessee and against the Department. We cannot countenance the conduct of Mr. Patankar as also of his junior Mr. Makode in accepting the brief of assessee against the IT Department. Mr. A. P. Patankar may not have signed Vakalatnama for assessee in this appeal, yet signing a Vakalatnama by his junior and his appearance for assessee in this appeal against the Department amounts to conflict of interest of assessee with that of Department. In all fairness and to maintain the high morals and ethics of advocacy, the Departmental counsel or his junior should not by his conduct show any interest in his adversary. When Mr. In all fairness and to maintain the high morals and ethics of advocacy, the Departmental counsel or his junior should not by his conduct show any interest in his adversary. When Mr. Sunil Makode is appearing as junior to senior standing counsel of Department in several matters to safeguard the interest of Department then in all fairness he should have refrained himself from accepting any brief of assessee against the Department to maintain the high standard of advocacy. Indeed, it was the duty of senior standing counsel to have seen that his junior should not accept any brief of assessee so long as he is appearing as junior counsel of Department. We hope and trust that our observations would be implemented by the counsel in letter and spirit in future so as to maintain and observe the high ethics of advocacy so also of the institution to which we all belong. .