Assertion: Two particles of different mass, projected with same velocity at same angles. The maximum height attained by both the particle will be same.
Reason: The maximum height of projetile is independent of particle mass.

Explanation

To solve the given question, we will analyze both the assertion and the reason provided.

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding the Assertion**:
The assertion states that two particles of different masses, when projected with the same velocity at the same angle, will attain the same maximum height.

2. **Understanding the Reason**:
The reason given is that the maximum height of a projectile is independent of the mass of the particle.

3. **Formula for Maximum Height**:
The maximum height (h_max) attained by a projectile can be calculated using the formula:
\[ h_{max} = \frac{u_y^2}{2g} \]
where \( u_y \) is the vertical component of the initial velocity, and \( g \) is the acceleration due to gravity.

4. **Calculating the Vertical Component**:
The vertical component of the initial velocity can be expressed as:
\[ u_y = u \sin \theta \]
where \( u \) is the initial velocity and \( \theta \) is the angle of projection.

5. **Substituting into the Formula**:
Substituting \( u_y \) into the maximum height formula gives:
\[ h_{max} = \frac{(u \sin \theta)^2}{2g} = \frac{u^2 \sin^2 \theta}{2g} \]

6. **Independence from Mass**:
From the formula derived, we can see that the maximum height \( h_{max} \) depends only on the initial velocity \( u \), the angle \( \theta \), and the acceleration due to gravity \( g \). Notably, there is no mass term in this equation, which indicates that the maximum height is indeed independent of the mass of the projectile.

7. **Conclusion**:
Since both the assertion and reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion, we conclude that the assertion is true, the reason is true, and the reason is the correct explanation for the assertion.

### Final Answer:
- Statement 1 (Assertion) is true.
- Statement 2 (Reason) is true.
- Statement 2 is the correct explanation for Statement 1.