On appeal held by High Court that proviso to S.72(1)(i) was omitted by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. Therefore, for the assessment year in question i.e., 2003-04, Assessee was not required to have carried on the business for the purposes of set off of brought forward business loss. Any income from business though classified under any other head can still be entitled to the benefit of set off.   Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. Section 72(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 employs the expression computation under the head Profits and gains or profession, whereas, section 72(1)(i) does not use the expression under the head .Thus, the Legislature has consciously left it open that any income from business though classified under any other head can still be entitled to the benefit of set off.  In  United Commercial Bank Ltd v. CIT ( 1957 ) 32 ITR 688 ( SC) ,  the court held that heads did not exhaustively delimit sources from which income arises. That business income is broken up under different heads only for the purpose of computation of the total income. By that break up the income does not cease to be the income of the business, the different heads of income being only the classification prescribed by the Indian Income-tax Act for computation of income  . Assessee was therefore entitled to set off of carried forward business loss against capital gain arising on sale of business asset used for the purpose of business.  Followed CIT v. Cocando  Radhaswami Bank Ltd ( 1965 ) 57 ITR 306 ( SC). Court also held that  reference cannot be termed as an order under section  254(1) of the Act . Therefore issue of proceedings under section 148 was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for adjudication afresh.   (AY. 2003-04)