Step 1: Matching table.
\[
\begin{array}{|c|l|c|l|}
\hline
\textbf{List-I} & \textbf{Concept in Words} & \textbf{Match} & \textbf{List-II} \\
\hline
(A) & \text{Utility measurable in numbers} & (I) & \text{Cardinal Utility} \\
\hline
(B) & \text{Change in TU due to 1 extra unit} & (III) & \text{Marginal Utility} \\
\hline
(C) & \text{MU declines with more consumption} & (II) & \text{Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility} \\
\hline
(D) & \text{Sacrifice of mangoes for a banana} & (IV) & \text{Marginal Rate of Substitution} \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
Step 2: Explanation.
- (A) → (I): Cardinal Utility assumes quantitative measurability of utility.
- (B) → (III): Marginal Utility = change in total utility due to one more unit.
- (C) → (II): Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility explains declining MU.
- (D) → (IV): Marginal Rate of Substitution shows trade-off between goods.
Final Answer:
\[
\boxed{(A) – (I), \; (B) – (III), \; (C) – (II), \; (D) – (IV)}
\]